cartoon

















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.





Lost Password?
No account yet? Register
King of Hits
Home arrow Forums
Messageboards
Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register.    Lost Password?
Your Views Messageboard
Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"
Name:
Subject:
Boardcode:
B I U S Sub Sup Size Color Spoiler Hide ul ol li left center right Quote Code Img URL  
Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons
B) :( :) :laugh:
:cheer: ;) :P :angry:
:unsure: :ohmy: :huh: :dry:
:lol: :silly: :blink: :blush:
:kiss: :woohoo: :side: :S
More Smilies
 Enter code here   

Topic History of: Essential information for all potential jurors
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
Author Message
corevalue I wouldn't go quite so far. But I would reject all judge's directions, and only make a decision on provable forensic facts. Even then, in light of what has happened in the past, I would have a built-in bias against the prosecution "expert" witnesses.

Allegations from the deep past (more than five years or so) I would follow your thoughts. Automatic presumption of innocence, as it should be.
JK2006 It's against the law to refuse jury duty when asked to do it. I never wanted to do it and, when requested, as I frequently was, I always replied "fine but please bear in mind, no matter what the evidence, my unshakeable morality is that I am in no position to judge another human being so I shall automatically vote Not Guilty".

I was rejected every time.

These days the law decrees that no evidence or proof is required against those falsely accused of sex offences. Until they change this (which governments must surely decide to do before the living leader of a party is accused) all jurors ought to vow to vote Not Guilty as a matter of principle. But just DON'T announce intentions beforehand or you'll be rejected as I was!