Judgement

[Maha]

I was put in a predicament a while ago, I didn't really want to be there, i had work to get on with. Jury Service.... it only took three days but still, it was not a pleasent experiance, though it was interesting to say the least. I wont go into the details to much, only that it was a Class B Drug case and we had to find the Defendant Guilty or Not Guilty on Dealing, he had already been found Guilty of Possession. Being in Court was a bit like being on a KB thread in a way, let me explain...(for me anyway) once you are in there, you dont really need/want to pass Judgement, but after reading (or listening when in Court) to what has been said you feel you have all the right imfomation and are therefore, able to make the correct Judgement (or so you think at the time) We came up with a Guilty Verdict after listening to all the evidence from both Prosecution and Defence. To me, the Defendant was there for a reason but I/We had to take in what had been said, and the Direction of the Judge. Question? Am i right in believing that, you can pass judgement on someone/something when all the probable evidence is put in front of you, even statements from witness's?

[Scouse]

Yes but let he who is completely without sin throw the first stone

[Steam]

Yes but let he who is completely without sin throw the first stone

Gimmie that stone, I'll fuckin throw the thing.

Maha Man, I didn't quite understand your question, but it sounds interesting. Could you clarify?

[mstriumph]

Yes but let he who is completely without sin throw the first stone
that's where the 'jury of one's peers' bit comes in ........ it's assumed that we are ALL potential stoners AND stone-ees

well - mebbe not Stoners so much - i could NEVER ride like he does ... :first:

[Disco Dan]

Do you remember that suitcase murder a while back? those asian fellas throwing the cut up remains stuffed into a suitcase off the wharf? big case on the news etc? well.. muggins here got called up for jury service for that case!!!

Fortunatly I turned up in full bike gear sitting in the court room... they did not pick me.. but if you saw the news clip, the scared looking muppet with helmet about half a metre away from the dock was me... :2thumbsup

[007XX]

that's where the 'jury of one's peers' bit comes in ........ it's assumed that we are ALL potential stoners AND stone-ees

well - mebbe not Stoners so much - i could NEVER ride like he does ... :first:

I used to be a stoner...but I cleaned up now...:D :innocent:

Eh, bite me, it is on topic, ain't it?

[Disco Dan]

Do you think he was guilty based on the evidence?

That, after all was all that was being asked of you. To perform your civic duty.

Where does judgement come into it?

[007XX]

Question? Am i right in believing that, you can pass judgement on someone/something when all the probable evidence is put in front of you, even statements from witness's?

To answer your question...

we can all pass judgement...it is whether it is done fairly and in an unbiaised fashion that is the big crux of your problem.

A totally impartial jury is very likely to be as difficult to pull as a backflip on a M50...

however, it is the only way society can make decisions at this stage.

[Maha]

Maha Man, I didn't quite understand your question, but it sounds interesting. Could you clarify?

Not right now...maybe later....


Do you think he was guilty based on the evidence?

That, after all was all that was being asked of you. To perform your civic duty.

Where does judgement come into it?

Read the post properly....'We the Jury find him Guilty'!
Yes i did think he was guilty...hence the Verdict
Judgement???... well i guess (and i mean this beyond all reasonable doubt) I Judged Him.... The prosecution had the better argument.

[Disco Dan]

Read the post properly....'We the Jury find him Guilty'!
Yes i did think he was guilty...hence the Verdict
Judgement???... well i guess (and i mean this beyond all reasonable doubt) I Judged Him.... The prosecution had the better argument.

Yes I did, my point being was I find a difference between making a judgement and making a decision based on facts.

[vifferman]

Am i right in believing that, you can pass judgement on someone/something when all the probable evidence is put in front of you, even statements from witness's?
Well, you've got to remember, even though the defendant is the one who gets it or doesn't, you're actually passing judgement on the prosecution counsel's presentation of the evidence, to whit: did the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty of the crime they have been charged with?
Having served on two juries back-to-back (would've been three, but the judge gave us a day off), I reckon trial by jury should be scrapped.
It's much too hard for Joe and Josephine Average to get their heads around the whole system. Plus you have a mixture of people who are judgemental, people who are thick, people who don't like others disagreeing with them, pedants, etc etc. "A jury of your peers"? Yeah, sure - a Tui Moment if ever there was one. The barristers make sure that doesn't happen! Also, the whole system is very cumbersome and tiresome, and quite perplexing to the uninitiated.
Example 1: The trial took place more than 18 months after the "alleged offence", during which the plaintiff had to live in the same town as the accused gang members, and be subject to their on-going intimidation. He very nearly got charged himself as a "hostile witness"!
And how were the witnesses supposed to remember details after all that time?!?

Example 2: On the second trial (a stabbing case), when we retired to the jury room, two dumbarses on the jury said, "He done it alright!" :rolleyes:
The stabbing was never in question; it was whether or not the prosecution proved what the defendant's intention was. So in this case, we had some jurors that were too thick to understand this nuance. Secondly, personalities and prejudices come into play: a stubborn or pushy person can sway the other jurors enough to get them to agree with what they want, or conversely, can cause a hung jury. Thirdly, the courts make it too hard for the jurors. While the lawyers have access to all the info they need, the jurors don't. We wanted to read one short piece of the transcript that we were discussing as pivotal to one of the cases. Seemed simple enough. But, no; everyone had to troop back into the courtroom, do the "rise for his Honour" , "be seated" all the other bullshit, then we told them what we wanted to hear, they read it out, we tried to commit it to memory, then did the "all rise for his Honour" , "be seated" all the other bullshit again, and filed back to the juror's room.
Lastly, there's a lot of pressure to come up with a unanimous verdict, especially if it's a Friday, and you don't want to have to come back again next week. I must confess, that after a week of flaffing around in the court, including having to stay for dinner one night, I didn't want that, so I volunteered as foreman, made sure that Dumbarse #1 and Dumbarse #2 didn't derail the whole thing and that we got a verdict by home time.

[/rant mode]

[ManDownUnder]

Question? Am i right in believing that, you can pass judgement on someone/something when all the probable evidence is put in front of you, even statements from witness's?

If I understand your question rightly then yes and no.

Yes you can form an opinion and passs judgement on what you have had presented to you.

No because it is safe to bet you have not seen and heard all possible evidence therefore there's the possibility of you arriving at a wrong conclusion.

There's a school of thought that says humans make rational decisions, but that theory has limits. It basically says you get all the facts - you assess all the facts and you act based on your requirements of that situation.

The problem comes from the ''all the facts" bit. Detractors of the theory quite rightly pointt out that there is no way of ever knowing if you are still waiting on extra information. How and when would you know you have it all? (does that help?... at all???)

Just do your best. Your job is to arrrive at a verdict, it is the lawyers' job to extract all the pertinent information for you to consider, and the judges job to ensure things are done fairly, and hand down final sentence. Do your bit - the rest is taken care of.

[vifferman]

...it is the lawyers' job to extract all the pertinent information for you to consider
Or to have it made inadmissable, or have doubt cast on it, or otherwise get the jury to discount it.

Also, it's not just down to facts; even though it shouldn't, emotion and personalities come into play.

[Maha]

Yes you can form an opinion and passs judgement on what you have had presented to you.

No because it is safe to bet you have not seen and heard all possible evidence therefore there's the possibility of you arriving at a wrong conclusion.


Answer 1.... I always Thought that was the case.
Answer 2.... I always Knew that was the case
Thank you for you post NED, took the whole thing in, as usual....:rolleyes:


Yes I did, my point being was I find a difference between making a judgement and making a decision based on facts.

Trust me on this, I did judge Him, even before a word was spoken.
My Decision was not swayed by my intial Judgement.




Also, it's not just down to facts; even though it shouldn't, emotion and personalities come into play.

They certainly do, I guess thats what makes all of us ( online and in 'Real' life) who we are, and making a decision based on what you know is fact, should never count against you.

[scumdog]

And quite a few times juries say after the trial, finding the guy innocent and THEN after finding out the guys history: "Shee-it, if I'd known THAT I sure as hell wouldn't have found him innocent, I never knew he was that BAD what with his quiet clean-cut appearance".

Good thing they never knew his previous crimes existed eh??EH??

[vifferman]

Good thing they never knew his previous crimes existed eh??EH??
It depends.
It would be fair, if in fact the guy WAS innocent of what he was charged with, but not if it was "more of the same" as part of a life of crime and he was a serial reoffender.

[Waxxa]

We all judge people every second of the day, even if we see that person from a distance, we make a judgement call on that person based on our perceptions and bias's.

On a jury, you are making a unaminous, unbiased decision based on law and factual evidence and it is this that a verdict is brought about.

Every member on that jury would have had their own judgement of this character: 'he looks alright' 'he looks dodgy" whatever....the verdict came about through evidence not personal prejudices.

[Swoop]

Maha, Ned has put it rather well.
We never get all of the evidence presented to the court.
A jury some time back, we found the accused guilty of a murder. There was a serious piece of evidence missing which was down to a serious police fuck-up.
Major police fuck-up, in fact.

We found out about this as we were leaving court after presenting the verdict and the prosecutor explained what had transpired. We made the right decision though.


Example 1:And how were the witnesses supposed to remember details after all that time?!
http://www.kiwibiker.co.nz/forums/showpost.php?p=1480267&postcount=62

Example 2:.........
Are you sure we are not twins??? This is quite remarkable.

[mstriumph]

........... "Shee-it, if I'd known THAT I sure as hell wouldn't have found him innocent, I never knew he was that BAD what with his quiet clean-cut appearance".

Good thing they never knew his previous crimes existed eh??EH??

i often wonder why SOME history is inadmissable [like "he's cut up a miniature poodle and three little old ladies before this one"]
whilst OTHER history [like "he had an unhappy childhood - he was potty-trained too young and his nanna used to make him clean his own room] is not only admissable but can also be used in mitigation? :wacko:

:rolleyes: strange stuff, justice, innit.....

[doc]

Yep the video footage at the scene, the evidence in the press, and the dude in the suit in front of the jury look quite a bit different.Especially if you are that sailing dude in Marlbourgh Sounds a few years ago. I would have hung him the first day. Glad I'm not suitable for jury service.

[Unit]

Being in Court was a bit like being on a KB thread in a way, let me explain...(for me anyway) once you are in there, you dont really need/want to pass Judgement, but after reading (or listening when in Court) to what has been said you feel you have all the right imfomation and are therefore, able to make the correct Judgement (or so you think at the time) after listening to all the evidence from both Prosecution and Defence. To me, the Defendant was there for a reason but I/We had to take in what had been said, and the Direction of the Judge. Question? Am i right in believing that, you can pass judgement on someone/something when all the probable evidence is put in front of you, even statements from witness's?
The process is supports to be a balanced presentation, because the situation and evidence has representation on both sides.
When I worked at Fisheries, our cases were not allow to proceed to a court hearing unless Crown Law who reviewed our (bigger) files felt there was a 90% probability of a guilty verdit based on the evidence we were about to present.
Yes you can pass judgement, but it is always a niggly feeling that what has been presented has gaps or biase attached.
Witness statements certainly need a lot of 'noise' filtered out of them. Contrary to popular belief, I found the 'hostile' witness the best, because that didnt want to be there, so they were more inclined to be on their side, and state what they know, no more, no less.
The Judges Direction can also be, unfortunately, biase, and it can sometimes be difficult to see this.

[spudchucka]

Judgement???... well i guess (and i mean this beyond all reasonable doubt) I Judged Him.... The prosecution had the better argument.

The funny looking joker at the front of the court room passes judgement, all you do as a juror is decide if the case is proven or not.

[Maha]

Between the Verdict being voiced and the Jury being asked to leave, the Defendant spoke and he said....
''You Dont Know, You Weren't There''!!
It was the first time I had heard the term.
And even though I was not at the crime scene at the time of arrest (I was able to and correctly I feel) form an opinoin based on facts given to me by those that were.
Its interesting that some of what goes on in a courtroom can be applied outside in everyday life. The Defendant was quite correct in what he said. I too was utterly correct in what I thought at the end of day three.

What i got out of this???

There are people (witness's) who know exactly what happened, if you must make a poor judgement at any given time....Own it!
Things will possibly be alot easier for you.

[Rogue]

M8 you did the right thing by turning up :clap:
So many people opt out of going :dodge:
You can only give a verdict on the information you are given and if you did you have done the right thing :niceone:

I say shoot them all and let god sort them out :2guns::

[xwhatsit]

two dumbarses on the jury said, "He done it alright!" :rolleyes:
The stabbing was never in question; it was whether or not the prosecution proved what the defendant's intention was. So in this case, we had some jurors that were too thick to understand this nuance.

That's what I hated about the trial I was a juror on (a rape case). Completely dumbarse set of South Auckland brain-addled uneducated fools that didn't understand 10% of what was said in the court-room. I don't profess to be particularly smart, but when you can't differentiate between `I think he did it' and having the prosecution prove beyond reasonable doubt... well should these tards really be involved in the justice system?

Christ, I'd hate to be brought before a jury if I was accused (but innocent) of something. Really took all my confidence away in the trial-by-jury system.