For COPS only

[Patrick]

... is that he made a terrible mistake,...

Its always a terrible mistake, wether it is your kid or someone elses...still doesn't make it all a box of fluffies then does it.

[Ixion]

The short answer to this thread, is that the reason the jury system , with all its manifest faults, has survived for 800 odd years, is because people just don't trust the police or judges. As the Vanner case shows.

Thank God for juries, say I , because they are the only point in the whole law enforcement process where common sense has a chance to be heard.

What we *should* do is bring back the Grand Jury. It was a big mistake abolishing it.

[Psalm42]

The short answer to this thread, is that the reason the jury system , with all its manifest faults, has survived for 800 odd years, is because people just don't trust the police or judges. As the Vanner case shows.

Thank God for juries, say I , because they are the only point in the whole law enforcement process where common sense has a chance to be heard.

What we *should* do is bring back the Grand Jury. It was a big mistake abolishing it.

Here here... right on the money Ixion..
the only thing I will add to that is, the jury should have the right to choose the sentance, (not restricted by the Judges or statute, guide lines of sentance only).

[scumdog]

Not emotive...logical! this man has suffered a fate worse than any court can apply, call him stupid, negligent whatever you like but charging him serves no purpose other than wasting taxpayers money.
The pigs made a mistake in charging this man...the courts proved it.

So where do you stop with the 'let him off 'cos he's wracked with remorse and guilt stuff"??

A brother drives drunk, hits power-pole, kills other brother, - should he NOT be charged??

Or maybe only if he's drunk??

Who gets to decide?

[Ixion]

The cases are not quite the same though ?

There is a specific crime of drunken driving (and drunk driving causing death I think).

Whereas manslaughter is a much vaguer allegation. "Negligence" - not taking *enough* care.

A more direct analogy would be one brother takes a corner too fast on a wet road (but still within the speed limiit) , sober, WoF etc all OK, but misjudges the corner, slides and hits that power pole, kills his brother pillion.

He made a mistake, didn't take enough care . He was negligent. Charge him with mansalughter ? Or even dangerous driving (manifestly, it *was* dangerous, cos someone died )? Or careless driving (had he been more careful there would have been no crash)?.

Most of the dissent about the charge is because of the vague nature of manslaughter. Townies , on the whole, arguing that letting the little girl ride a quad is not just careless or stupid, but grossly negligent - enough for a manslaughter charge. Farmers, on the contrary, saying , no, people do that, he was careless , didn't keep enough of an eye on her, but he just made a mistake of judgement - like the guy on the wet road.

[scumdog]

Ixion, I was more alluding to the fact that to some "guilt and grief are enough punishment", sorry if a 'muddied the waters' with my example.

[SixPackBack]

So where do you stop with the 'let him off 'cos he's wracked with remorse and guilt stuff"??

A brother drives drunk, hits power-pole, kills other brother, - should he NOT be charged??

Or maybe only if he's drunk??

Who gets to decide?

Juries not the fricken Police...they would have know that a jury would never convict this man.
Comparing it to drink driving is hardly the same, after all the incident with the qaud could be compared to farm kids riding on the back of tractors feeding out hay, being left in a paddock with a dodgy farm animal etc.
Why is so hard to accept the cops fucked up?

[scumdog]

Juries not the fricken Police...they would have know that a jury would never convict this man.
Comparing it to drink driving is hardly the same, after all the incident with the qaud could be compared to farm kids riding on the back of tractors feeding out hay, being left in a paddock with a dodgy farm animal etc.
Why is so hard to accept the cops fucked up?

Like they did when the pig-hunter left the loaded rifle on the ground and one kiddie shot the other??

Was there an offence involving the quad? YES.

So it went to court.

(IMHO turning ANY small kid loose on a quad is risky, great when nothing goes wrong but if it does???)

[SixPackBack]

Like they did when the pig-hunter left the loaded rifle on the ground and one kiddie shot the other??

Was there an offence involving the quad? YES.

So it went to court.

(IMHO turning ANY small kid loose on a quad is risky, great when nothing goes wrong but if it does???)

I have voiced my opinion and apparently a jury agrees with me, the only thing left to say is to mirror Ixion's post...thank goodness the Police do not make these desicions because frankly they are often wrong

[scumdog]

I have voiced my opinion and apparently a jury agrees with me, the only thing left to say is to mirror Ixion's post...thank goodness the Police do not make these desicions because frankly they are often wrong

As Police are meant to be a cross section of society what chance does the jury have of getting it right? how often are THEY wrong??

Just a thought.

[Flatcap]

Thank God for juries, say I , because they are the only point in the whole law enforcement process where common sense has a chance to be heard.
.

Ixion - you have far more faith in juries than I do. These are supposed to be a jury of your peers, but in reality are most often made up of people without the wherewithall to avoid jury duty. I have had several friends serve on jurys - some on very nasty cases - where the 'less able' jurers have arrived at an opinion purely on the look of the defendant and ignored evidence. Others had attempted to spin out deliberations for as long as possible to pocket as many free feeds and $50 paydays as they can.

[Winston001]

I have voiced my opinion and apparently a jury agrees with me, the only thing left to say is to mirror Ixion's post...thank goodness the Police do not make these desicions because frankly they are often wrong

Well unfortunately for your proposition, the police obtain a conviction on about 90% of the charges they lay. Of the 10% defended, they obtain a 75% conviction rate. It is a pretty robust system.

[Psalm42]

As Police are meant to be a cross section of society what chance does the jury have of getting it right? how often are THEY wrong??

Just a thought.

12 Men/Women deciding on the facts and opinions presented vs 1 Man/Woman (police) deciding. At least with the 12 jurors you get the chance one of them will have common sense. And in all honesty of the society I see 1 in 12 having common sense may be being too generous. But if I'm close with the one in twelve idea, and your right about police being a cross section of society that would mean only 1 in 12 police have common sense.

[Psalm42]

Well unfortunately for your proposition, the police obtain a conviction on about 90% of the charges they lay. Of the 10% defended, they obtain a 75% conviction rate. It is a pretty robust system.

Hi Winston, could you confirm wether these % you quote are on all trials or are they on the jury trials, where they have laid charges. Cheers.

[Winston001]

Hi Winston, could you confirm wether these % you quote are on all trials or are they on the jury trials, where they have laid charges. Cheers.

No, I'm referring to all charges laid by police across the board. I read these statistics a while ago in a Justice Department report.

Only a very small number of charges are ever heard by a jury. The point is that judges are not dismissing many charges laid. If they were, than we'd have cause to worry about our policing. As it is, the police are catching the crims and the vast majority of the time are able to make the charges stick.

I'll see if there are any stats for jury trial results.