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

Enter code here

Topic History of: Shock report - jurors get it wrong, especially in high profile media trials
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
veritas	OK- badly worded Emma Bee. I mean he was found Not Guilty as it should have been because 4 of us decided the evidence wasn't conclusive and held to our beliefs which were genuine and as directed by the judge. The others came around to our thinking but I am convinced it was only to get the hell out of there. And I was surpised by the ones with me-much older pensioner types who actually took it seriously whereas the ones who said "he looks guilty" were fairly young by comparison. One even said "he looks my ex-boyfriend" with a sour note in her voice! It's not an experience I wish to repeat.
BR	I have done jury service...... On Crown Court jury where there were 12 people often a good half were of what I would say is limited intelligence - and they were also the most vocal. Having said that I believe we got ALL the decisions right in the end - because they took it seriously BUT we did not have a high profile case toc look at. I firmly believe that High Profile cases are almost impossible because every juror has a prior position before even entering the Courtroom from the media and how they view such situations. That is why SION JENKINS got convicted when it was 100% obvious he did not do it - and so did the Jill Dando guy. Both of these men went to prison because of the media coverage - not the evidence. In JK's case that also certainly seems to be the position. In addition famous people seem to get double the length of sentence. REAL criminals always seem to get short sentences because I suppose they know they will back in any case a few years later for a new sentence !!!! I read some ACTS yesterday that New Labour had brought in. I can tell you now that they are unwieldy - badly worded - ambivalent - full of loopholes ( Both ways ) and seem to have been drawn up by a 10 year old. No wonder our courts are in such a mess. The first thing I would do as a new TORY HOME SECRETARY is order a review of ALL of New Labour;s Legislation since 1997 and particulary 2002 onwards. Repeal most of it - and where necessary pass new clearer laws. The mess we are in only benefits LAWYERS - and guess what.....CHERIE AND TONY and mates were all LAWYERS......so no wonder they passed such a mess to keep them in work for years to come.
Emma Bee	"He got off"? That is often the phrase used when people think a guilty person has gone free. Do you think he was guilty, or do you mean that the "Not guilty" verdict was the right one? I would hate to be on a jury. I would probably find everyone not guilty because I'd always wonder if I'd really been told all the facts. Most cases tend to be based on accusation or previous convictions.
veritas	I was on a jury years ago and people really did say "he looks guilty" about a burglar. The others tried to browbeat a few of us but gave up as time went on.They wanted to get home. He got off but the ignorance is frightening.
david	yes I saw that too and immediately thought of you.