Judgement

[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/sh...7&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?

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:Me]

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
So many people opt out of going
You can only give a verdict on the information you are given and if you did you have done the right thing

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

[xwhatsit]

two dumbarses on the jury said, "He done it alright!"
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.