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: Excellent commentary by Simon Jenkins in Guardian about juries
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
hedda	www.theopinionsite.org/british-juries-ar...etent-and-dangerous/
Pru	JK2006 wrote: My point is that wanting to know what is meant by "reasonable doubt" is something the average juror should expect a judge to explain in layman's terms; it is such a vague concept... is it "reasonable" to doubt someone's evidence because you think they seem dishonest? Or should you have actual facts - proof they are lying? Or is there simply not enough solid evidence to convince you? A stupid phrase and NOT stupid to wonder what the fuck it means. It ISN'T a vague concept - that is why you are completely understandably furious at the unjust treatment you received. Don't attack your own defence.
JK2006	My point is that wanting to know what is meant by "reasonable doubt" is something the average juror should expect a judge to explain in layman's terms; it is such a vague concept... is it "reasonable" to doubt someone's evidence because you think they seem dishonest? Or should you have actual facts - proof they are lying? Or is there simply not enough solid evidence to convince you? A stupid phrase and NOT stupid to wonder what the fuck it means.
Pru	JK2006 wrote: Don't agree; that was my problem in my trial; I would have thought that 4 out of 6 witnesses getting the dates several years out (always making them much younger in their statements than they would have been; in one case a 12 year old became 16) should have given jurors "reasonable doubt". You don't disagree, you don't understand. If YOU think 'reasonable doubt' is meaningful and understandable, which your comments clearly suggest you do, then Jenkins' stupid claim that not understanding it is proof of a 'deep' philosophical sensibility is just silly. Don't indulge such lazy claptrap.
JK2006	Don't agree; that was my problem in my trial; I would have thought that 4 out of 6 witnesses getting the dates several years out (always making them much younger in their statements than they would have been; in one case a 12 year old became 16) should have given jurors "reasonable doubt".