In my opinion having twelve people off the street sit on the jury is wrong.
It should at least be 12 people that know the intricacies of law.
Fully qualified Sifter.
In my opinion having twelve people off the street sit on the jury is wrong.
It should at least be 12 people that know the intricacies of law.
Deus ex ukulele
The jury system is founded on people being tried by a panel of their peers. It is up to the judge to ensure that juries are familiar with legal intricacies relevant to the case being tried. Juries are now allowed to ask questions, as they did on three occasions during their deliberations on the Nicholas case, to clarify any legal points they are unsure of.Originally Posted by Crasherfromwayback
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Fully qualified Sifter.
Yeah I'm aware of that, but I still feel it's wrong. Juries are to a certain extent selected, and I feel often there are people on them that are too easily swayed and bullied into submission.
Deus ex ukulele
More worrying is that the population from which jurors is selected is highly skewed in favour of people with time on their hands i.e. beneficiaries. Most people with "real jobs" just aren't able to take several weeks away from their primary income source to sit on a jury, and are generally successful in getting exempted if they are summonsed.
"Standing on your mother's corpse you told me that you'd wait forever." [Bryan Adams: Summer of 69]
Fully qualified Sifter.
Correct, I've twice 'excused' myself.
Enigma
Maybe that's where it's going wrong Spud ? Gaz.
Trainer wheels optional
Why should there be pressure on the Police.
They are to decide if a law has been broken, and to gather information (both for and against) to present to the court. The court does everything from there. The police act as agents to the Queen & Government, the courts are impartial (to a political point).
Wearing Hi-Viz Black.
Just to clarify this point. A jury may ask a question to the judge - via the foreman. They cannot ask general questions in court.
This is normally limited to the reading of relevant passages of the court transcript of the case.
TOP QUOTE: “The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people’s money.”
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
We have a four tier justice system
1) The cops make an arrest then stand in their own tool box
2) Smarmy lawyers suck up the cash and head for the bank
3) The judges play with their dicks under the bench while dozing
4) The crims take to their scrapers and it's back to tier one
BUT!!! Heaven help you if you run off with someone's CASH!
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
Sorry???
Which country are you in?
Trainer wheels optional
Sorry?, which affairs of the court should the police be involved with.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/repo...ew/part_d2.htm
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
You read waaayyy too much and need to get out more.
'Justice'? It's under 'j' but nobody's likely to find it in NZ.
Trainer wheels optional
It is just the behaviour of police & media have shifted the expectations of the public on what police are meant to do, and Helen Clarke is not the President of NZ yet.
is currently sulking in the Sin Bin
Or, more accurately, the misbehaviour of police and media.
As for Helen; see you at the polls.
Hardcore Biker
Beyond reasonable doubt is a tough ask to prove.
The prosecution must prove this to secure a conviction.
Murry Foreman walked because reasonable doubt was established by the defence.
To summerise.
Prosecution case
No witness/es to the crime,
No forensic evidence,
Could not place the Defendant at the scene
Relied too much on an obviously dodgy third party witness who is being supported financially by the police.
DefenceEasily Discredited the dodgy witness.
Presented another senario that was equally palusible given the evidence that was avalible. the police did not follow up on this.
Created enough doubt, there by defeating the prosecutions chances of securing a conviction.
Police
Really need to lift their game or more and more poeple will be able to defeat them in a court of law as recent and past cases have highlighted.
Arguing with an Engineer is like wrestling a pig in mud.
After a while you realise the pig is enjoying it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks