- This topic has 84 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 1 month ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Then there is those two voices of the progressive Left, “The Guardian” and the “New Statesman”.
The former was very happy to pay Brand as a columnist even when his behaviour was widely known about. It was very lukewarm in condemning Brand over the Andrew Sachs incident. The likes of Owen Jones and George Monbiot were almost desperate to bask in Brand’s aura.
The latter invited Brand to be its guest editor (apparently one of his bright ideas was to rename it the Nude Statesman). It has not been a good time for the magazine. Its former editor, Peter Wilby, has recently been found guilty of possession of child pornography. He was given what several commentators thought was a very lenient punishment. The story was also somewhat buried by a media which protects its own – I doubt Someone The Media Does Not Like would have been treated in the same way. Contrast how a guilty man like Wilby has been treated compared to Brand (not yet guilty of anything and may never be) or Cliff Richard (who was exonerated).
Aside from Wilby’s own crime, he tried to suppress the work of a journalist investigating abuse in children’s homes and wrote several newspaper columns condemning attempts to uncover child abuse as a “witch hunt”.
It took “The Guardian” several days to amend his profile after he was convicted and it took a fair amount of pressure before it gave in.
The current rape conviction rate is abhorrent, but the nature of the crime makes me dubious that any alternative system would dispense justice any better.
Perhaps the best hope is to focus efforts on reducing incidents of rape in the first place. So much of Brand’s act involved regarding women as nothing other than potential conquests. Despite this, he was widely feted and indulged for many years.
Is it any wonder that young men aspiring to be as successful as he was in the noughties could have ended up with a very warped view of how to treat women? The current popularity of people such as Andrew Tate makes me think matters have improved little in the meantime.
Cork – “The jury system is not perfect but it is better than anything else. It would be a
serious mistake to discard it.”I know this will ruffle a few feathers, but I would do away with the jury system. In every
court you have a different level of understanding, simply because names are drawn out of a
hat. I can speak from a bit of experience when I’ve seen cases which look stonewall walk out
the door. Worse than that is that I’ve seen cases which I’d describe as “iffy” at best and
the accused is taken down to serve a sentence. An example of why I think this system is
dangerous, was that a partner of a mate of mine said “if they are sitting between the two
police officers, that will do for me they are obviously guilty” What if she were on your
jury, and how many may be like her.If you can afford a good defense lawyer, who is more likely to sway a jury than a duff one,
or one (as is too often the case) that doesn’t want to go court, is over his head with cases,
and is more interested in the legal aid cash cow than his clients. I’d much rather have a judge
that simply goes on the evidence available and not swayed by a sweet talking lawyer.I actually prefer the French system, where 3 judges sit and they can get involved in the
police case to see if everything is above board. No system is foolproof, but I think
decisions based on admissible evidence is fairer than 11 random people, IQ quota not required,
who are thrust into some complicated cases.Well, I did say at the start of the thread that a good argument was overdue!
I cannot agree with getting rid of the jury system. It is about the most important safeguard against a state that could imprison us at will if it was so minded.
I expect a few of us here have served on juries. I did 10 years ago, as it happens on a sexual assault case. One of the jurors was a bit of a pain. To be blunt about it she was absolutely dense and a nicotine addict, so spent a lot of time complaining about how she was not allowed to smoke. But by and large I thought the system worked well.
I think we would be crazy to remove it.
Agree re juries CAS. Of course our own individual experiences are simply anecdotal evidence but, having served on rather more of them than I would wish to, I’ve been reassured by how seriously the large majority of people take the process.
‘Well, I did say at the start of the thread that a good argument was overdue!’
That we can certainly agree on. It’s obviously a complicated and emotive subject but it’s all generally been quite respectful I think. You’ve even got Ian and I on opposite sides of the fence to some extent, that’s usually long odds against!
I’ve not read all that much of what the likes of The Guardian are saying but there definitely is some furious backpedalling going on from what I have seen.
As for juries, I’ve never been on one so I don’t really know how it all works but I do not think I’d be comfortable with their removal. The law has its flaws and should be constantly reviewed in what should be an endless pursuit of perfection.
Well best of luck Cork and Marlingford if you ever find yourself on the
wrong side of the law whilst innocent. If you go along with the “12 good
men and true” then good luck whichever lucky bag you open for a jury.
Rather than me list case after case, just type in “wrongfully convicted”.
The jury system is an archaic court ritual which has been going on since
the 12th centuary. Try telling Andrew Malkinson that the jury system works.
He was convicted of rape and served 17 years before DNA proved he couldn’t
have been guilty. He would have been out of prison years ago, but only if
he told the parole board he was guilty. He refused to admit to a crime he
didn’t comit and spent 17 years in jail. There are countless cases. If Capital
Punishment hadn’t been abolished the “Birmingham 6” would undoubtedly all have
been hanged. Several innocent people have been.The countries that use the jury system, the UK, the US, Canada, Ireland and
Australia and other countries whose legal systems were derived from the British
Empire. We have a lot to answer for. Would you be happy to be found guilty or not
guilty by the 1st 12 people that passed you in the street? That’s basically what
you get. There are fraud cases that the Fraud Squad struggle to grasp, what chance
do you have from 12 people who would rather be at work (you don’t get lost wages covered)
you do get expenses and a dinner chit. I would rather see 5 people get off with a
crime than 1 innocent person convicted and sent to prison. Imagine that for a minute.I think it’s a system that is unsafe and is well overdue changing,likein most European
countries. I’ve been at hundreds of trials seen what can go wrong. If I were on trial,
I’d go for trained judges every time. The more vile the crime, the more chance a jury
would find the person guilty. That’s just my view for what it’s worth.Trial by jury certainly isn’t the answer. Friend served on a jury on a rape trial. 11 of them thought he was innocent an hour after they retired. She didn’t and questioned their decisions. A couple said it was “because she had tattoos” or similar nonsense. Others had no reason but just went with whatever they thought was the majority so they could go home. None had considered the evidence. After lengthy arguments and a night in a hotel, they changed to “guilty”. A string of identical offences was then revealed. One juror apologised to my friend at the end and said he had still thought bloke was innocent but wanted to get home for the weekend. I would be in favour of specialist courts to try sex offences (and complex issues like high level financial fraud for that matter) with specialists trained in the issues rather than floundering amateurs vulnerable to being swayed by prejudice and ignorance.
It is getting too late to write a full response but I fundamentally disagree. I would take my chances with a jury, any day.
I agree Cathrene (Tonge) it’s a horribly randon form of justice. If
your friend hadn’t stood her ground, even though none of the jury can
be told of his previous, unless he tries to give evidence to his previous
good character, he would have walked. I’m sure if Marlingford says that
the juries he sat in all took it seriously I’m pleased, but in a great
many cases some, if not most would rather be out the door or hold their
own prejedices, such as your friend mentioning the juror taking it that
she was covered in tattoo’s as a negative when it was neither here nor
there. As I said, you pick 12 random people and you get a result, pick
another 12 and very possibly you get another. I think a change is long
called for.I find it a difficult one.
Any random 12 people can’t be relied upon to examine the evidence diligently, competently and without personal prejudice.
But the alternative is surely far more sinister – the State unilaterally dispensing “justice.”
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"‘The more vile the crime, the more chance a jury would find the person guilty.’
Cases that get to court are a biased sample. As I understand it, cases generally only make it that far where there is a realistic prospect of conviction.
The Malkinson case isn’t the jury’s fault, they can only consider the evidence in front of them. Obviously it was just about the worst miscarriage of justice imaginable but it’s down to those in charge of the case to present the jury with the full facts.
As I have said earlier, there is clearly an issue with rape cases but that’s more about getting them to court in the first place rather than what happens once they are there.
“As I understand it, cases generally only make it that far where there is a realistic prospect of conviction.”
Yes, afaik it is a myth among some that the Police decide whether or not to charge people with crimes.
AFAIK they don’t – they make inquiries, arrests and question suspects, but afaik it is the Crown Prosecution Service that decides if charges should be made and a person brought to court.
And the CPS do this based upon not only on their assessment of probability of guilt, having examined the evidence, but on the prospects of securing a conviction in court.
In short, if you end up in court on criminal charges the CPS think you’re probably guilty.
But the CPS is part of the State and it’s up to an independent Jury (advised but not outright instructed by the Judge) to determine actual guilt.
It’s far from perfect, but I think the alternative is far worse.
I’ve known even people with legal training be swayed in discussion by the severity of an alleged crime – but just because someone is accused of a particularly awful crime, that doesn’t make them any more likely to be actually guilty of that crime.
I am "The Horse Racing Punter" on Facebook
https://mobile.twitter.com/Ian_Davies_
https://www.facebook.com/ThePointtoPointNHandFlatracingpunter/
It's the "Millwall FC" of Point broadcasts: "No One Likes Us - We Don't Care"That was pretty much my understanding of the situation Ian. I’ve had a quick look and it seems to be that it’s a bit of both, Police can charge low level stuff but basically anything ‘serious’ needs the CPS. I think I’m right in saying that anything laid before a jury will have required the CPS to authorise the charge and therefore meet their test for possibility of conviction. Clearly these are the ones we hear about so the confusion is understandable.
Heavy stuff for a Saturday morning!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.