Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
#1755590
FlarePath wrote:Just had a quick Google before letting this one go, interestingly it appears that "Not Guilty" is NOT the same as "Innocent" just that the the prosecution failed to persuade a jury of your "guilt". Apparently the courts never find anyone "Innocent"


Indeed. This is the rationale with which the MoJ denies compensation to the majority of people whose convictions are quashed after spending time in prison. They argue you would have to have been 'proven innocent', which you are not, in order to be eligible for compensation. They tend to pay out only when someone else goes down for the crime instead, as I understand it.
#1755819
Surely in a system where you are "Innocent until proven guilty", then by definition absolutely any outcome except for "guilty" makes somebody innocent in the eyes of the law.

With one obvious but complex exception - where somebody is found "not guilty" (or "not proven") in a criminal court, but then a civil court finds somebody liable for damages - where of-course that is down to "on the balance of probabilities". That must presumably put people in a bit of a grey area.

G
#1755821
Ultimately any jury verdict is an opinion, it can clearly never change the truth. Whatever that may be.

Having had the misfortune to experience the process (as a witness) close up I concluded the best option is to obey the law and stay away. Unfortunately many find themselves in the system inadvertently and discover for themselves what a sham it can be.
#1755830
But what is "the truth".

I've been involved as what the law calls an "Expert" in various air accident cases. There is never any dispute as to whether there was a crash or not, nor usually who was flying the aeroplane. But, were they in some form negligent - potentially creating a crime, or at-least civil liability, or not - in which case there's no crime, but *may* be still civil liability.

Sexual offence cases, which thankfully I have no experience of, must often be similarly ambiguous, particularly where memories modify themselves with time. There may be no dispute that intercourse took place, but if one remembers it as consensual, and the other as forced - it may be the case that both are, in their own lights, correct.

G
#1755831
@Genghis the Engineer if we avoid becoming too philosophical and acknowledge there are significant numbers of cases where perceived truth can be equally believed we are still left with the vast majority where the truth is something other than what is being presented in court.

Many criminal cases are based on creating a story of fiction in order to convince the jury of something other than the truth. That applies to prosecution and defence alike.
Flyin'Dutch' liked this
#1755838
That's an interesting observation. If the police are now trained in extracting the truth (or at least the recalled truth) from witnesses non-adversarily - why do barristers still get away with trying to badger or trrip-up witnesses? Why isn't the transcript or video of the police interviews adequate?
#1755841
Bless.....

Because the proponents of the adversarial system earn a decent crust!

A barrister mate once told me when he showed me his chambers library and said 'You will note that none of the works in here carry the title 'Justice' and asked how they prepared for court his answer was; 'You don't know how many pages we can read a day'

Draw your own conclusion from that.

That the legal profession does better out of the public purse than other professions may not be a coincidence as many out of their midst are well represented in the corridors of power.
#1755901
That the legal profession does better out of the public purse than other professions may not be a coincidence as many out of their midst are well represented in the corridors of power.


That all depends;

By contrast, the lack of dosh available at the junior end of the Criminal Bar is well documented. Successful junior barristers doing work supported by legal aid – be that criminal or civil – can earn under £20,000 a year. Some juniors in this field may struggle to make enough money to live on, and certain chambers whose juniors have low earnings offer them interest-free loans to cover costs. That's a credit to those sets but an indictment of the low earnings at the publicly funded Bar as a result of legal aid cuts. Anonymous blogger the Secret Barrister recently pointed out that the House of Commons was advertising for a position as a barista which paid more than a typical legal aid junior earns.

Another thing to bear in mind is that all earnings described on this page are not only before tax, but before chambers rent (typically 20% of earnings). Furthermore, as barristers are self-employed they can take as much or little holiday as they want. This naturally has an impact on their annual income.

https://www.chambersstudent.co.uk/where ... sters-earn
kanga liked this
#1756253
ChrisRowland wrote:
Bill Haddow wrote:The trouble with the jury system is that it is based on a bunch of people too dumb to avoid jury service.

Bill H


What a mean, despicable and selfish person you are BiIL Haddow.



Yeah. Whatever. :roll:

ChrisRowland wrote:
I was asked to jury service last year and was happy to do so. I saw it as part of my duty as a citizen to do so . . .

. . . All the jurors were careful to discuss things fairly and listen to each other's points of view. We were aware that we had an important duty and were determined to do as good a job as we could.
. . .


“O ye wha are sae guid yoursel',
Sae pious and sae holy,
Ye've nought to do but mark and tell
Your neibours' fauts and folly! “

Ach, take no notice of The Address to the Unco' Guid, you just carry on virtue signalling.

Bill H
#1756255
Flyin'Dutch' wrote:Bless.....

Because the proponents of the adversarial system earn a decent crust!



Apart from the accused, and some of the witnesses, everyone else but the jury members are being paid, some quite handsomely, for their participation.

I also remember a university lecturer telling us that "The British legal system isn't justice, but its terribly convenient"

Bill H
(just discharged from the National Golden Lubbly Jubbly and back in harness)