Postby Jono on Thu 29/May/08 2:39pm

dhroadie wrote:I maintain that MOST people are stupid, gormless, emotional, reactionary idiots. You just have to read the "your views" section of the Herald site to see what fuckwits inhabit this country. Ban this, restrict that, put a stop to the other, nine times out of 10 it's a fairly isolated case they're jumping to conclusions over.

I'd shudder to think these are the kind of people who'd be judging me or someone I care about should they ever get into enough trouble to warrant a jury trial.


True. I'm always amazed at how many people seem to view jury service as something to be avoided, rather than a service to the community.

There does appear to be a lot of "ban this, stop that..." in public opinion, until, of course, it's something that affects those being asked. Then it's "nanny state stopping me living my life."

I suspect it's a no-win game...
Jono
User avatar
"High Grade Mental Defective"
Member for: 15 years 11 months

Postby Friendly Llama on Thu 29/May/08 2:39pm

Oli wrote: And no innocent person ever goes to jail in England, do they? :eh:


That wasn't the question - you asked for 'a credible alternative' ;)
Friendly Llama
Member for: 14 years 4 months

Postby Oli on Thu 29/May/08 2:48pm

Fair enough.
Oli
User avatar
Member for: 12 years 4 months

Postby musket on Thu 29/May/08 2:53pm

Jono wrote:
dhroadie wrote:I maintain that MOST people are stupid, gormless, emotional, reactionary idiots. You just have to read the "your views" section of the Herald site to see what fuckwits inhabit this country. Ban this, restrict that, put a stop to the other, nine times out of 10 it's a fairly isolated case they're jumping to conclusions over.

I'd shudder to think these are the kind of people who'd be judging me or someone I care about should they ever get into enough trouble to warrant a jury trial.


True. I'm always amazed at how many people seem to view jury service as something to be avoided, rather than a service to the community.

There does appear to be a lot of "ban this, stop that..." in public opinion, until, of course, it's something that affects those being asked. Then it's "nanny state stopping me living my life."

I suspect it's a no-win game...


The Law Commission did an extenisve, unprecedented study of juries and jury trials in 2000. I spent 3 months in a small paper with Warren Lister, who headed the study. It was interesting to read interviews with Jurors before / after trials. On the whole, the took the process very seriously, became interested in the area of law concerned, and were transformed in to quite rational beings.

Post trial, many Jurors reported having a much better understanding and trust in the Criminal justice system. It was an empowering experience.

This is the study that led to widening of court zones for the purposes of recruiting juries, and the practice now of deferring service for a definite period, rather than "getting out" of serving on a jury altogether.

The largest contributing factor to Jurors failing to comprehend things is legal drama television. Denny Crane is not a real person.
musket
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 2 months

Postby j2hyde on Thu 29/May/08 3:01pm

That sounds disturbingly qualitative. Especially given it was a study conducted by lawyers.
j2hyde
User avatar
"I'm not for that. I'm for the ladies."
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby musket on Thu 29/May/08 3:05pm

Perhaps - but if you think people make scary juries, you should think about robots.

It was a huge survey / study, and much of it used data obtained from MoJ / Courts. As for outcomes etc - show me an empirical way of measuring juror performance and perception. Go on.
musket
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 2 months

Postby Spokes on Thu 29/May/08 3:25pm

Denny Crane IS real.


Did jurie service once, never again. Not paid enough.
Spokes
User avatar
""Always carry a flagon of whiskey in case of snakebite and furthermore always carry a small snake."--W.C. Fields"
Member for: 12 years 1 month

Postby j2hyde on Thu 29/May/08 3:56pm

musket wrote:show me an empirical way of measuring juror performance

I'm not going to show you, but soggy sao is one measure of performance that would provide some interesting results.
j2hyde
User avatar
"I'm not for that. I'm for the ladies."
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby j2hyde on Thu 29/May/08 4:03pm

And, ummm

musket wrote: you should think about robots.


Binary solo: 00001 00000011 000001 000001111 0000001 00000011 0000001 00001111
j2hyde
User avatar
"I'm not for that. I'm for the ladies."
Member for: 12 years 2 months

Postby Dazzle on Thu 29/May/08 8:32pm

dhroadie wrote: Think of the kind of people who make up juries. Most "normal" people manage to weasel out of it most of the time. So you're left with sickness beneficiaries, the terminally unemployed, those too stupid to get out of it, students and the elderly.

I maintain that MOST people are stupid, gormless, emotional, reactionary idiots. You just have to read the "your views" section of the Herald site to see what fuckwits inhabit this country. Ban this, restrict that, put a stop to the other, nine times out of 10 it's a fairly isolated case they're jumping to conclusions over.

I'd shudder to think these are the kind of people who'd be judging me or someone I care about should they ever get into enough trouble to warrant a jury trial.



I have served on a trial jury. I entirely agree with that rant.
Dazzle
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Postby Dazzle on Thu 29/May/08 8:36pm

musket wrote: The largest contributing factor to Jurors failing to comprehend things is legal drama television. Denny Crane is not a real person.


And the CSI effect.

It also leads the the morons that think there is such a thing as absolute freedom of speech, that allows them to say whatever they like online.
Dazzle
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Postby musket on Thu 29/May/08 10:30pm

I concur on both those points. There was some heavy consideration more recently about sequestering New Zealand juries in some cases as a result of the "absolute freedom of speech" perception.
musket
User avatar
Member for: 15 years 2 months

Postby happybaboon on Fri 30/May/08 11:18am

http://stuff.co.nz/4565809a10.html

Fucking hell. I always thought that once a jury aquitted somebody then it was game over for the prosecution ... I think it's totally, totally not fair play to be considering trying this poor guy again.

Can any of the Vorb laywers cast any light on why the prosecution thinks that they're allowed to have another go at getting this guy?
happybaboon
User avatar
"Proud owner of vorb's largest"
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Postby Friendly Llama on Fri 30/May/08 11:27am

I'd guess new evidence?
Friendly Llama
Member for: 14 years 4 months

Postby happybaboon on Fri 30/May/08 11:30am

The point relates to evidence suggesting Gwaze's niece, Charlene Makaza, 10, whom he was accused of suffocating while sexually abusing her, may have died from sudden complications arising from her HIV-positive condition.

The evidence came to notice after Christchurch paedatrician Spencer Beasley, met a South African specialist at a conference in Hong Kong after giving evidence for the Crown at the trial.

The specialist Professor Heinz Rode detected similarities between Charlene's symptoms and those of some children dying of Aids.

Beasley conveyed the information to a police detective who took notes.

Presiding judge Justice Chisholm then admitted the hearsay evidence through the detective under an exception to hearsay evidence in the Evidence Act.


To me it sounds more like they're disputing the legitimacy of some already-presented evidence that favoured the defence. Seems like a big load of sour-grapes and/or BS.
happybaboon
User avatar
"Proud owner of vorb's largest"
Member for: 15 years 10 months

Crime | Sifting - Latest Posts

Who is online

70 Users browsing this website: DotBot, Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot], oldandlazy, phunk and 63 guests

REMEBER TO CLICK THE LINKS WHEN BUYING FROM VORB SUPPORTERS


  • GT Bicycles
  • Merlin Cycles
  • ProBikeKit
  • Vorb Shop
  • Wiggle
  • Chain Reaction Cycles