Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

The Plot Thickens

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
22 Feb 2013 - 3:16 PM

There not much else going on, by way of news, at the moment! Wink

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
22 Feb 2013 - 3:16 PM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014458 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
22 Feb 2013 - 7:53 PM

Juries were banned in SA in 1930.

collywobles
23 Feb 2013 - 8:30 AM


Quote: If you want juries, that is what you will end up with. The only other option is the inqusitorial system in some other countries where it is all down to magistrates or judges.

Oh yeah, like all them wise and worldly judges who have never seen the real world! I know which system I would prefer.

thewilliam
23 Feb 2013 - 9:32 AM

The problem with jury trials is that the "12 people, good and true" are likely to vote for whichever lawyer has made to most convincing argument. Ordinary folk are influenced by red-top papers when it comes by election time.

Or, in the case of Vicky Pryce, the jury just doesn't understand what they're supposed to consider. As cases get ever more complex, it'll get worse.

chris.maddock
23 Feb 2013 - 9:58 AM


Quote: As cases get ever more complex, it'll get worse.

Which is why the last UK government wanted to drop jury trials for some classes of serious fraud - partly because of the complexity of the issues in such a case would be beyond the comprehension of the majority of financially untrained people and also, IIRC, because such trials frequently take so long that you'd have jurors taken out of their normal lives for an unreasonable length of time.

The Lords blocked it.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014458 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
23 Feb 2013 - 8:16 PM

Of course Chris, that would make too much sense.Tongue

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014458 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
23 Feb 2013 - 8:22 PM

Well, he's out on bail, which is probably not a bad thing. The magistrate waited till the end of a speech lasting 1 hr 45 mins to tell him his bid for bail was successful. His next court appearance is scheduled for June 4th, but some believe there will be a plea bargain done before then. They could agree to a lesser charge than premeditated murder.

lemmy
lemmy  71768 forum posts United Kingdom
24 Feb 2013 - 12:13 AM

The only lesson from all of this is that if you have firearms about the place, people will get killed.

Whatever the truth, if he had not had a gun no-one would have been killed. You can't kill someone through a locked door with a knife or a cricket bat.

collywobles
24 Feb 2013 - 9:17 AM


Quote: The problem with jury trials is that the "12 people, good and true" are likely to vote for whichever lawyer has made to most convincing argument. Ordinary folk are influenced by red-top papers when it comes by election time.

Some of you are underestimating the British public. In all the dealings I have known about trials is that the jury make a judgement of the "facts" presented.

lemmy
lemmy  71768 forum posts United Kingdom
24 Feb 2013 - 9:40 AM


Quote: In all the dealings I have known about trials is that the jury make a judgement of the "facts" presented.

My brother was a juror in a fraud case. It was quite complicated but my brother told me that the reason the man got off was that the jury felt that if found guilty and he went to prison, it would not be not fair on his family. My brother's feeling was that the time to think of that was before committing the fraud, not after.

It was a majority verdict, though, based on emotion and not the facts as presented. My son is a lawyer and supports the jury system in principle but thinks that you just have to accept that it is a lottery more than a system nowadays. The police seem tacitly to accept this is the case.

mikehit
mikehit  46161 forum posts United Kingdom9 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2013 - 2:59 PM


Quote: The police seem tacitly to accept this is the case.

My cousin was a lawyer and he said one of the most difficult things to happen for the prosecution was the creation of the CPS: before that, there was a fair bit of backroom dealing on pleas along the lines of 'we both know this guy is guilty as hell so if you get him to plead guilty we will go with a lesser charge on that other case' and they could spend resource on those cases that really needed their time and effort.
He admitted it was all a bit of a lottery and open to abuse but what we have now is each case being up for grabs, and to save resoruce the CPS decision to prosecute is based on the likelihood of a guilty decision as much as the merits of the case. Is that really any better? Add the jury lottery we have at the moment and you can see why some people think the system really needs looking at.

Carabosse
Carabosse e2 Member 1139392 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2013 - 3:17 PM

Plea-bargaining is well-established in countries such as the USA. It has always seemed a little distasteful, but I guess it is pragmatism.

StrayCat
StrayCat  1014458 forum posts Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
24 Feb 2013 - 7:46 PM

Apparently plea bargaining is quite frequent in SA also.

Add a Comment

You must be a member to leave a comment

Username:
Password:
Remember me:
Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.