P C Phillips

[Less]

I don't live in dread of jury duty, if I'm ever called I'll go responsibly and put up with whatever it incurs, I suspect the reason I've never been called is that those in charge don't know their alphabet all the way to W, for my surname whereas my mate whose name starts with B has been called 3 times, he even ended up in charge head Mon or whatever they call the guy in charge at a murder trial, ducking under is as irresponsible as never getting your arse into gear to vote.

[Margaret Pilkington]

I have never been called, but during my working life I believe I was exempt.
My mum did Jury service and loved it.

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Less

I don't live in dread of jury duty, if I'm ever called I'll go responsibly and put up with whatever it incurs, I suspect the reason I've never been called is that those in charge don't know their alphabet all the way to W, for my surname whereas my mate whose name starts with B has been called 3 times, he even ended up in charge head Mon or whatever they call the guy in charge at a murder trial, ducking under is as irresponsible as never getting your arse into gear to vote.

does this mean they prefer to have a barsterward on a jury than a W........

err winkle picker ?

[Less]

Originally Posted by accyman

does this mean they prefer to have a barsterward on a jury than a W........

err winkle picker ?

Nope it just means what I said read as much as you wish into it, otherwise accyman on a jury could possibly mean arsehole if picked, Yukk no lets not go there pick your own!

[Rowlf]

When I said I have lived in dread that does not mean I would not have gone as requested if summoned. I regard it as my duty like voting. I will not be asked now as I am too old.

[accyman]

Originally Posted by Less

Nope it just means what I said read as much as you wish into it, otherwise accyman on a jury could possibly mean arsehole if picked, Yukk no lets not go there pick your own!

lol you know me so well

[Eric]

I can't see anything wrong with the jury system ... if there are any obvious miscarriages of justice or over-lenient sentences, it is usually the fault of the professionals in the case: the Crown, the defence, or the trial judge. And then there is the appeal process to back up the lower courts should they fail to conform to the law, or just generally make a fubar of the whole issue. Jurors, and this is why the jury selection process is important, can't just decide on a whim that someone is guilty or not; they have to consider the evidence and the trial judge's charge.

[Margaret Pilkington]

Eric, you cannot see anything wrong with the jury system because you have the power of critical thought and analysis....this is something which is probably less common in the population today(though I know that is a sweeping generalisation) but when you see the comments made on social media, twitter and the like, it really does make you wonder about the intellect(or lack of it) of some people today.

[Eric]

Originally Posted by Balbus

Although we have not heard the evidence, most of us probably think that the jury got it wrong. Is it time we looked at the jury system again? Has it outlived its usefulness? It is sometimes said, unkindly, that you are no longer judged by your peers, but by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury service. (Apologies to those who have done their duty, and perhaps enjoyed the experience.) Should the system perhaps be replaced by a judge sitting with 2 lay assessors, as in South Africa (although they reached the wrong verdict in the Pretorius case)? Such a system would be more efficient. quicker, and less expensive.

From what I have read, I don't think the jury got it wrong. And if an appeal hasn't yet been lodged, either by the Crown or the defense, the jury must have done what a jury is supposed to do: weigh the evidence, follow the charge of the judge, and reach a verdict. The 20 year sentence seems appropriate, by the way.

And I have a question: does an accused have the right to elect trial by jury, or trial by judge alone? Here's a very recent case from over here in the colonies ... a case in which either a guilty or innocent verdict would cause massive amounts of feces to his the swiftly rotating object ... a case in which the accused elected trial by judge alone.

Jian Ghomeshi found not guilty on choking and all sex assault charges - Toronto - CBC News

By the way, what is your take on this one ... I would like the other side of the pond view

[Margaret Pilkington]

I don't think that the accused has a choice in such cases.
But if I am wrong I am sure there will be someone along in a minute to tell us.
I would not like to make judgements on the case you have posted a link to.
I think you would have to be in court, hear all of the evidence before you can make a call.
Ha! I hear you say.....we're you in court for the Clayton Williams case?
No....I wasn't, but I did see the video footage of the policeman being run down.
I cannot believe that anyone could do such a thing and expect the man to survive.....or not to be inflicted with injuries so severe that his life was(in effect) over.
Is 20 years long enough?
Well, that depends. If this guy does not get released for 20 years then it might be(well except that of course we are picking up the bill for keeping this worm).....but if he does not serve all of the sentence then No...it is not enough.
If it were up to me, this guy would spend every waking moment moving huge rocks by hand from one side of a compound to the other.....and then moving them back again the following day.
Make prison hostile and inhospitable.....then maybe they would be less popular places to be.....and criminals may change their ways.
Get rid of the hand wringing liberals who want to give these guys a soft time.

[cashman]

Some say severe imprisonment dont work, well i ask the question, When there was P.D. "preventative detention " as a sentence, was the prison population more or less?

[Margaret Pilkington]

Removing a persons freedom doesn't work if that is all that is done.
Maybe a person is incarcerated, but their life is frequently better in prison....they have no responsibility to look after financial things, their meals are provided, they have a roof over their head, they have health, education and recreational facilities, they can socialise.
Where is the deprivation in that...Apart from being removed from their family.
Many old age pensioners would like to be looked after in such a way.....but they aren't.
Prison doesn't work because it isn't a hard life anymore.

[Rowlf]

Well said Margaret. I dont think there should be televisions in cells either. One in a communal room ok perhaps. It is far too cushy. Shifting rocks or similar would be a good idea. I would be in favour of chain gangs like the States and make them build roads or some other manual work. I still do not understand why when a sentence is given they only serve half ? what is the point of that ? In this case I believe 20 years was the maximum that could be given for manslaughter.Clearly the law needs altering.

[Less]

Originally Posted by Margaret Pilkington

Removing a persons freedom doesn't work if that is all that is done.
Maybe a person is incarcerated, but their life is frequently better in prison....they have no responsibility to look after financial things, their meals are provided, they have a roof over their head, they have health, education and recreational facilities, they can socialise.
Where is the deprivation in that...Apart from being removed from their family.
Many old age pensioners would like to be looked after in such a way.....but they aren't.
Prison doesn't work because it isn't a hard life anymore.

Hmmm, yes well, when the prison service really kicked off we had more or less the same buildings, people imprisoned had to wear masks and were not allowed to talk to each other and given ridiculous and useless tasks to perform. I think it was called hard labour.
It was no use to the prisoners or society, plus, on finishing a sentence society wouldn't allow them to work because of them having the stigma of being a jail bird. (that obviously lead them back to crime).

Now we seem to have gone too far in the opposite direction, ordinary folk that have never been caught doing wrong, are second class citizens any training placement goes to the ex con, their probation officer bends over backwards on coming out to find them employment (whether they are up to it or not) making sure they get preferential over the poor beggars with equal qualifications/age and intellect.

Do the crime serve the time fair enough, after that they come out with a clean slate but deffo' not preferential treatment, let them join the back of the queue and prove they are capable of the work offered. There isn't much of it to go around.

[Margaret Pilkington]

The thing is this lad cited his poor upbringing and lack of education as being partly responsible for him leading a life of crime........many of us in society had hard lives and were poor....but we did not resort to crime.
For most of us it made us strive harder to make something of our lives. And NO, of course this was not easy...but anything that is easy is hardly worth doing.

Clayton Williams was reported to have been smoking cannabis since the age of six.......how did that happen.....when social service can take children from parents for the flimsiest of reasons yet this lad was left with a mother who obviously had no idea of parental responsibility.......where did he get the cannabis? Where did he go to smoke it?
Why were his teachers not suspicious of this...there must have been signs that he was doing this. I am led to believe that cannabis has a pungent odour....but nobody noticed it on him as a child?
Something somewhere isn't right, that is for sure.

The real victims are the wife and two children of the police officer