King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]Jo79 wrote:[/b]
[quote][quote]if they are sure a complainant is telling the truth, [b]must[/b] they find guilty, despite the passage of time & total lack of any supporting evidence?

The Judge's answer.... - if the complainant gave accurate and truthful evidence then they [b]should[/b] convict.[/quote]

So 'should', but not 'must'  (if the quote is accurate), would this be because of the right of the jury to 'nullification'?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

[quote]Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case.[/quote]
and:
[quote]Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power.[/quote]

So if the jury doesn't believe the case should have been brought (for whatever reason), they can acquit - even if they do believe the accuser(s) - but they are unlikely to have been told this???

Have I got that right?[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: DLT Jury question...
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
JK2006	My jury, after less than 4 days of trial, took 3 days to reach a verdict, and one juror walked out in disgust (bless you, Madam; an Asian lady who saw me when she was walking out and raised her eyes to the skies as if to say "they are all crazy in there; I refuse to be a part of it"). I suspect the trouble is - any juror with a brain cell and a sense of decency says "I refuse to be a part of this lunacy; this case should never have reached court; I understand that I ought to vote GUILTY because he probably did grope and leer and wink but it wasn't a crime then and times have changed and I will NOT send a man to jail for behaving in a stupid way decades ago". But sadly insanity often conquers and the mad law may force GUILTY verdicts on some charges. As I've said before, they ought to be tracking down girls or very young women who broke the law years ago trying to get votes for females and bung them in jail to die an elderly death.
JK2006	And it seems perfectly impossible for anyone to understand - a person can genuinely believe they are telling the truth and you can be convinced they are being truthful when the reality is a far smaller incident - if one at all. Memory memory… a slapped buttock can turn into rape with the passage of years, especially if it's a celebrity who slapped you.
Jo79	if they are sure a complainant is telling the truth, must they find guilty, despite the passage of time & total lack of any supporting evidence? The Judge's answer.... - if the complainant gave accurate and truthful evidence then they should convict. So 'should', but not 'must' (if the quote is accurate), would this be because of the right of the jury to 'nullification'? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification Jury nullification occurs in a trial when a jury acquits a defendant they believe to be guilty of the charges against them. This may occur when members of the jury disagree with the law the defendant has been charged with breaking, or believe that the law should not be applied in that particular case. and: Judges rarely inform juries of their nullification power. So if the jury doesn't believe the case should have been brought (for whatever reason), they can acquit - even if they do believe the accuser(s) - but they are unlikely to have been told this??? Have I got that right?
JK2006	Yes; this is such a crucial point. If Justice in Great Britain still believes a person is innocent until and unless they are found guilty, and if the burden of evidence must be "beyond reasonable doubt", 95% of these cases should never be brought to court.
In The Know	One person's word - against another's - can NEVER be "beyond reasonable doubt". There will always be doubt. Why should a defendant be disadvantaged because the "complaintant" failed to make a complaint for 40 years ? Is that fair, or reasonable ?