Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1755014
Just a small niggle Misc. Salmond was NOT acquitted on all charges. He was acquitted on 12 and found Not Proven on 1. AIUI Not Proven is not an acquittal. I don't mean to suggest that he was, therefore, guilty in fact.

As to 'trial by media' and the continuing post-trial anonymity of his accusers, that does not seem fair but the public has a prurient interest in such things which the press bottom-feeders are happy to supply so perhaps Sooty's suggestion makes some sense, but what chance is there that that will happen?
#1755023
rf3flyer wrote:Just a small niggle Misc. Salmond was NOT acquitted on all charges. He was acquitted on 12 and found Not Proven on 1. AIUI Not Proven is not an acquittal. I don't mean to suggest that he was, therefore, guilty in fact.

Did I use the word acquittal? If I did it was unintentional. I think the consequence of not proven is the same as not guilty. IE he is innocent.

rf3flyer wrote:As to 'trial by media' and the continuing post-trial anonymity of his accusers, that does not seem fair but the public has a prurient interest in such things which the press bottom-feeders are happy to supply so perhaps Sooty's suggestion makes some sense, but what chance is there that that will happen?

Little chance, I fear.

Flyin'Dutch wrote:I know a lot of people think the jury system is great - I personally think it is awful and partially to blame for the miscarriages and unsafe convictions we not infrequently have.

I agree, this thread in fact had me wonder if the verdicts would have been different if certain posters with a distinct dislike of him were jurors. :wink: I also wondered how much the political leanings, one way or the other, of the jurors influenced their vote (they were majority verdicts)?
#1755028
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I am all for a more cautious approach when it comes to publicising names etc but on the other hand I suspect that Weinstien would not have been found guilty if it would have been a single woman making the same allegation.

And although justice needs to be done in the public eye, I think we can all agree that we can do without the media circus surrounding these cases; a particular bad example was the house search of Cliff Richard being live televised by the BBC; what were the police and the BBC thinking?

I know a lot of people think the jury system is great - I personally think it is awful and partially to blame for the miscarriages and unsafe convictions we not infrequently have.

Having 12 lay people decide on whether someone is guilty or not may have been a reasonable approach in the distant past, but what do you and I know about drug trafficking or fraud?

We would not let our noddle be operated upon by '12 men and women good and true' now would we?

So why rely on them for such important matters?

That was a little different as there was a long list of women who went public (presumably with payment in some instances) with their accusations.
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/life/peop ... 804663001/

Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I know a lot of people think the jury system is great - I personally think it is awful and partially to blame for the miscarriages and unsafe convictions we not infrequently have.

Having 12 lay people decide on whether someone is guilty or not may have been a reasonable approach in the distant past, but what do you and I know about drug trafficking or fraud?

We would not let our noddle be operated upon by '12 men and women good and true' now would we?

So why rely on them for such important matters?

It's up to the prosecution and defence to make their case so is understandable as common justice, including to the defendant and accusers. Justice shouldn't become a technocratic exercise that is impenetrable to anyone but insiders. Justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done.

I'm struggling to imagine a better system than a jury of peers, rather than Peers, or even Piers.
#1755032
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:I am going to lie down for a bit now.

There is only so much a man can take!

:lol: :lol: Sorry Frank, how do I address it? Should I be more vocal every time we agree, or is your preference that I disagree, even when I don't, to keep the banter going? :wink: :D

@eltonioni I think there is a marked difference between not thinking something is great and coming up with a significantly better option. A bit like democracy, I guess. :wink:
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1755044
eltonioni wrote:It's up to the prosecution and defence to make their case so is understandable as common justice, including to the defendant and accusers. Justice shouldn't become a technocratic exercise that is impenetrable to anyone but insiders. Justice should not just be done, it should be seen to be done.

I'm struggling to imagine a better system than a jury of peers, rather than Peers, or even Piers.


Nope, the jury system makes it so that the side which puts up the best show is most likely to win.

OJ Simpson anyone?

A jury typically sits 2 weeks and finds defendants more often not guilty in the first week and guilty in the second week, after they have learned that a lot of offenders are repeat offenders.

That has nothing to do with justice.
Miscellaneous liked this
#1755137
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:A jury typically sits 2 weeks and finds defendants more often not guilty in the first week and guilty in the second week, after they have learned that a lot of offenders are repeat offenders.

:?
Isnt that how its supposed to work? Jurors starting with the premis that someone is innocent, then they get convinced they are guilty as a trial progresses?
#1755202
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Nope, the jury system makes it so that the side which puts up the best show is most likely to win.



this is a failing of the Court system and the Judiciary. Cases should be heard on fact, not on what a barrister can get an intimidated "civilian" to say under pressure, or how well he can act.

Withholding of "negative" evidence by prosecution teams should be classed as contempt of court, yet it isn't.

I find the whole legal system pretty contemptible to be honest, along with many that work in that industry.
#1755206
Sooty25 wrote:Cases should be heard on fact, not on what a barrister can get an intimidated "civilian" to say under pressure, or how well he can act.

They should, but they're not. I think the vast majority see the judicial system through rose tinted spectacles. The reality is that it is about selling a story and very often bending the truth until broken in the quest to achieve a win. Including police officers lying under oath.

It takes very little exposure to the system to understand getting at the truth is far from the priority.

Sooty25 wrote:I find the whole legal system pretty contemptible to be honest, along with many that work in that industry.

+1 :thumright:

I'd like to think there is a distinction between talking about politics and talking politics. :D

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... s-52012145
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1755409
And what is that supposed to mean?

History is littered with people found not guilty after a long process who have had their lives turned upside down.
kanga liked this