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]Innocent Accused wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]In The Know wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Innocent Accused wrote:[/b]
[quote]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090593/Juror-used-internet-research-defendant-jailed-6-months.html

Yes she was told not to do it,but is the system wrong to tell her to do it?
I bet most jurors search up a defendant,it's human nature to be inquisitive.
i would scrap jury service,and use qualified magistrates alongside a judge.[/quote]

NO - it was not wrong to tell her not to look at a defendants past.
He is charged with the CURRENT (alleged) crime - not any past ones. He may have been guilty of dozens of occasions previously but that does not make him guilty THIS time.

Jurors should decide on the basis of the evidence (in this case) - and nothing else.[/quote]

Actually ITK quite often now the past is put in front of a jury,and is done in a very inconsistent way.It really does depend on the judge,for example in my trial they kept the past out,because my false accuser had a long and nasty criminal record,while mine has always been clean.
My point was also to reflect on the sentence...6 months for googling! 
The only way to keep jurors from searching is to look them away under guard,otherwise this is only the tip of the iceberg...I reckon most trials have a few jurors doing this...so back to my original idea of scrapping jurys,and using magistrates instead.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Juror Jailed for Googling defendant
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
veritas	after years of thinking one way...I'm having a big re-think about British justice. I'm now leaning towards various European style systems ( France, Italy) where a magistrate investigates possible charges rather than police..reviews the evidence etc before they decide if charges should be laid. I know DPP should be independent...but
Innocent Accused	In The Know wrote: Innocent Accused wrote: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090593...jailed-6-months.html Yes she was told not to do it,but is the system wrong to tell her to do it? I bet most jurors search up a defendant,it's human nature to be inquisitive. i would scrap jury service,and use qualified magistrates alongside a judge. NO - it was not wrong to tell her not to look at a defendants past. He is charged with the CURRENT (alleged) crime - not any past ones. He may have been guilty of dozens of occasions previously but that does not make him guilty THIS time. Jurors should decide on the basis of the evidence (in this case) - and nothing else. Actually ITK quite often now the past is put in front of a jury,and is done in a very inconsistent way.It really does depend on the judge,for example in my trial they kept the past out,because my false accuser had a long and nasty criminal record,while mine has always been clean. My point was also to reflect on the sentence...6 months for googling! The only way to keep jurors from searching is to look them away under guard,otherwise this is only the tip of the iceberg...I reckon most trials have a few jurors doing this...so back to my original idea of scrapping jurys,and using magistrates instead.
In The Know	Innocent Accused wrote: www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090593...jailed-6-months.html Yes she was told not to do it,but is the system wrong to tell her to do it? I bet most jurors search up a defendant,it's human nature to be inquisitive. i would scrap jury service,and use qualified magistrates alongside a judge. NO - it was not wrong to tell her not to look at a defendants past. He is charged with the CURRENT (alleged) crime - not any past ones. He may have been guilty of dozens of occasions previously but that does not make him guilty THIS time. Jurors should decide on the basis of the evidence (in this case) - and nothing else.
Innocent Accused	www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2090593...jailed-6-months.html Yes she was told not to do it,but is the system wrong to tell her to do it? I bet most jurors search up a defendant,it's human nature to be inquisitive. i would scrap jury service,and use qualified magistrates alongside a judge.