Aresholes con a jury, part two

[Scouse]

We're going to end up enemies over the interpretation of the law soon.

Not worth it

I very much doubt that Bruce would be shaking in his boots

[ManDownUnder]

I very much doubt that Bruce would be shaking in his boots

Good - it wasn't a threat at all - just an observation. I'm just saying there seems to be a point we've reached where the best thing to do is agree our opinions differ.

No?

[Macktheknife]

The role of the state is to be seen carrying out justice, failure to do so can lead to vigilantie justice and gangsterism, in other words belief can be more important than fact. Whether an defendant is actually guilty or not is unimportant compared with the outcome if the general populace starts to believe that the justice system is toothless and the only way to acheive a reasonable outcome is too take matters into their own hands.

Just playing devils advocate here as I am unsure of my own view on this matter at the moment.

WHAT!!!!!
You cannot be serious, if you were the defendant I think you would change your tune pretty damn quick!
So far we have 'lets convict him anyway because he is a bad bugger'
Then, 'lets convict him because he hangs around with bad buggers.'
Then we get 'lets convict him because it will prevent Joe public taking the law into their own hands.'
Who needs evidence if the standards are like this???
And for the record many people already believe the system is toothless, and yet we do not have gangs of Vigilantes in the streets.

[terbang]

I have not name called or attacked anyone I have just continued with my point of view. Yet I have been name called (by a Mod) and mildly threatened for having an opnion that doesn't fit with the majority (and the crown). And you say

but please allow others their opinions and rights too.

Get real..

[ManDownUnder]

...and mildly threatened for having an opnion that doesn't fit with the majority (and the crown).

If that's my post you're referring to there is no threat in sight. Agreeing to disagree about things is the outcome I'm after.

Anyway - off for the weekend.

[MisterD]

like in this case where young women not connected to each other believe, enough to bare all to the world, that they were sexually violated and eventually spoke up.

Believed, but was unable to identify CR from photos of the time, the best she could you was that she thought it was someone called Clint who had a tattoo. You want to convict on that?

[Scouse]

Believed, but was unable to identify CR from photos of the time, the best she could you was that she thought it was someone called Clint who had a tattoo. You want to convict on that?

I think he should be fried on that

[Bykmad]

Christ almighty. Get over it people. The Jury heard the evidence, (In BOTH cases against Rickards) and both Jury's acquited him. Thats called Trial by your peers, which is what the Justice system is based on.
Blame the Jury's, or blame the Prosecution, but all in all, its over!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not many of you would know Rickards, so dont Judge the man simply on what you see on TV.

[Ixion]

As for there being more to come? I don't know what you think you know, but given that the Judge yesterday lifted all of the Court suppression orders, and given Clint Rickard's reaction, I reckon it would be a fair bet that there is nothing more "to come".

Not so. There are more that were not lifted.

from today's Harold

We still can't refer to * * * * * * * * or name Mr * * * * * * *
Although one of the suppression orders in the police sex trials has been lifted, others remain in place.
They were made at three different levels of the court system - the District Court, High Court and the Court of Appeal.

[terbang]

Well I've had my say and I hope its loud and clear.. I'll just take my bleeding heart off to la la land before I meet the wrath of becoming an enemy of MDU. Sheesh so much for a debate/discussion having two sides around here...

[Grahameeboy]

Well I've had my say and I hope its loud and clear.. I'll just take my bleeding heart off to la la land before I meet the wrath of becoming an enemy of MDU. Sheesh so much for a debate/discussion having two sides around here...

[Hitcher]

Yet I have been name called (by a Mod)

Really? Who? Infract that bastard, I say.

[imdying]

That bitch has receieved no more than she deserves... she can't make up lies about events that supposedly happened 20 years ago.... how are they supposed to defend against that? Hope she ends up in the bottom of the harbour for what she has done to those poor guys.

[Macktheknife]

Get real..

Actually that comment was not directed specifically at you mate, you have been reasoned in your argument and I respect that.
I thought the 8 pages represented a reasonable 2 sided discussion actually, with a couple of notable exceptions.

[Dafe]

ummm... you just found the perfect excuse to get off Jury Service.

"Your Honour - I've found that a persons face..."

While you're at it - go lock this guy up - he looks pretty damned sus. Obviously a bad bastard....

You got it bigtime wrong. John Mitchells has intelligent eyes, there is no visciousness in his eyes.

It might sound stupid to you, But maybe you are incapable of analysing people in that respect. I've been in enough prisons to have seen the resemblance.

Also, Innocent until proven guilty my friend. Just because someone may be capable of committing a crime doesn't mean you should lock them up. They may not have done that crime.

Do I really need to give explanations that pre-schoolers would already understand???

Can I still have the "Get out of Jury Service free" card?