tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post4391170113149709866..comments2023-10-28T19:42:01.039+01:00Comments on Going fast, getting nowhere: Jury ServiceRichardhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15743685798068014455noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-70358332252699562072012-01-08T14:54:29.718+00:002012-01-08T14:54:29.718+00:00Defendant acquitted of a major crime in 1975 and t...Defendant acquitted of a major crime in 1975 and then, as a result of the miracle of DNA, is back in the frame in 2012 needs to go on trial again for the same crime he was acquitted of all those years ago. We move with the times. As for the case you cited, I quite agree. For 30 years I was in and out of a witness box `for a living`. I never lied, never cheated, always told it as it happened and watched many a guilty person walk away acquitted, along with the rightly convicted. I never arrested or reported anyone who didn't deserve to go to court and I was allowed to use my discretion to warn or caution those who I judged would benefit from my personal assessment. Those who were convicted did not affect me any more than those who were acquitted - in the end I genuinely didn't give a toss about what I thought, but always felt for the victims who always end up at the bottom of the pile, forgotten.Hogdayafternoonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06188146617570775741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-7102356089892497662012-01-07T16:21:35.808+00:002012-01-07T16:21:35.808+00:00JuliaM and Bucko, your caveats noted and (sadly) a...JuliaM and Bucko, your caveats noted and (sadly) agreed with. This kind of thing is going to happen whenever we have a state over our heads to arrange things to its own agenda or convenience. But without a state, who would have brought SL's killers to trial? Everything is a compromise.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743685798068014455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-90618341167954666252012-01-07T13:40:45.018+00:002012-01-07T13:40:45.018+00:00Richard - Double Jeopardy also serves to make sure...Richard - Double Jeopardy also serves to make sure the police do their job properly. In the case of your man who is aquitted on Monday, if the police did not have enough evidence for a conviction then they shouldn't have gone to trial. The photo found on Tuesday would then have meant they could go to trial.<br /><br />Nowe there is the chance they may have been investigating a case for a while but are lacking evidence because they suspect the wrong person and they just say, "Oh well this will have to do, let's run with it. We can always try again later if necessary".Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-8883377787384001952012-01-07T11:51:44.612+00:002012-01-07T11:51:44.612+00:00"The bar for the 'significant new' ev...<i>"The bar for the 'significant new' evidence is set fairly high, as I understand it."</i><br /><br />Well, two things there. First, I expect that to be weakened the first time the state or a pressure group like the ones driving the Lawrence trial gets thwarted by the evidence not being as significant as they would like, and second, that 'significant new evidence' is (currently!) the smallest drop of blood ever to secure a conviction.JuliaMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07844126589712842477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-46489984207689289372012-01-06T23:59:03.141+00:002012-01-06T23:59:03.141+00:00Perhaps if I had been more precise, and said "...Perhaps if I had been more precise, and said "<b>what might be regarded in other circumstances as</b> common sense has to take a back seat"? I agree entirely - prejudice, bias, hearsay and all those other 'common' failings have no place in a court. The case must be tried according to the evidence presented and nothing more. But the life-experience of the jurors (provided it is applied with maturity and cool reason) is surely what makes justice human, and I would not dismiss it. Otherwise, guilt or innocence becomes a mere calculation, and young children could be jurors as easily as adults.<br /><br />Perhaps for 'common sense' I meant that gut feeling of right and wrong that makes justice meaningful. Poor choice of words.<br /><br />Personally, I don't see a problem with a slight alteration to the double jeopardy principle in a time of technological advance. Before, a man could be aquitted of murder on a Monday, and a photograph of him committing it could be produced on the Tuesday and nothing could be done. Now, if 'significant new evidence' emerges, a re-trial may be ordered. DNA advances are perhaps the most obvious example, providing evidence such that, if it had been available at the original trial, the outcome was likely to have been different. In Mediaeval times, once the 'facts' had been established it was unlikely that further persuasive evidence could be found. Today, that is not only possible, it is likely. I see no problem with the law changing to account for this. The bar for the 'significant new' evidence is set fairly high, as I understand it.<br /><br />I am aware that the automatic right to trial by jury has been abandoned, and a great shame that it was.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15743685798068014455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-17055813515052881772012-01-06T22:35:51.209+00:002012-01-06T22:35:51.209+00:00"But it does raise a problem - common sense h..."But it does raise a problem - common sense has to take a back seat."<br /><br />I agree with most of what you say - but this phrase I took exception to. Common sense - based on ones own experiences and therefore prejudices (of whatever nature) have no room in a courtroom. As a motorcyclist I'm sure you've even experienced some form of prejudice - a biker in full leathers can be a omninous sight to some. Common sense is also subjective - I work in I.T so therefore I have none, but everyone has their own idea of natural justice - corruptible as that is, ergo we have the rule of law.<br /><br />The criminal record of a defendant has no relevance whatsoever in showing whether they are guilty or not of the crime they are currently being tried for. Where it does have relevance is in sentencing and the Judge who decides that is in full possession of all the facts. <br /><br />As for double jeopardy - the lawrence case is not the first time its been employed - two other cases, William Dunlop and Mark Weston both have been convicted following a second trial. The crimes are of such a nature, that failure to respond to the change in circumstances would be criminal in itself.<br /><br />Also, just to address you on a point of law - do not forget, even our so called 'civilisation' waives the right to trial by jury when it suits us. The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland and now domestically too:<br /><br />http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8106590.stm<br /><br />Justified? No, not really - it is a measure of a failing civilisation when such methids are employed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7099099432720184584.post-57115843951990549652012-01-06T13:51:47.794+00:002012-01-06T13:51:47.794+00:00Maybe now that Double Jeopardy has been scrapped f...Maybe now that Double Jeopardy has been scrapped for the Steven Lawrence case, the cops can arrest those thugs you found not guilty and try them again.<br /><br />I'm glad I was not on the jury either because I would have been very tempted to say not guilty just to reinforce the original decision, as I don't beleive they should have been brought before the courts a second time.<br /><br />Murderers going free is bad but removing centuries old freedoms on a political crusade is much worse.Buckohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03169970711606515445noreply@blogger.com