firlandsfarm wrote: ↑Mon Aug 21, 2023 10:04 am
Derek27 wrote: ↑Sun Aug 20, 2023 5:53 pm
When 12 jurors are selected they either pick 12 people with no knowledge of the case or they'll expect each juror to dismiss any knowledge they have of the case/defendent (if it's a celebrity, for example) and only consider evidence presented in court.
If you every have or get selected for jury service, you'll find you're not send down the pub to deliberate and reach a verdict. I don't know why you keep making comparisons between the two.
I will refrain applying Kai's rule of forum debating
and I'm beginning to understand the trickery in your tactics. Make a statement that is 100% correct and implies it is in respect of countering something the other person said whereas on inspection at best it adds nothing and could even be misleading! When did I ever suggest that juries were sent to a pub to deliberate?!
As for your first para. I'm pleased to see you agree with my understanding of jury based justice and that nobody can be "obviously guilty" until after the court process has been completed.
I think your problem is whenever you read one of my posts, you think to yourself, how can I counter that post or render it irrelevent. What you need to do is read the flipping post and understand it in the context of the discussion before assessing it!
The jist of your argument is (despite the bum being found totally and comprehensively guilty of lying through his teeth by the select committee), if I can call the buffoon guilty why can't 12 members of a jury decide he's guilty and thus skip any form of trial?
The simple answer is that juries, as I've explained and as you've already accepted, work under different and more robust rules and see the totality of the evidence. That doesn't mean lay people can't reach their own conclusions.
Remember Ian Huntley, the Soham murderer? His defense was that one of the girls had a nose bleed, went to the bathroom, slipped, fell into a bathful of water and drowned. The other girl started screaming so he put his hand over her mouth and accidentally suffercated her.
As we gamblers know, the probability of just one of those events happening is astronomical, never mind the double. Did you really need to wait for the jury verdict to find out if he's guilty? I didn't.
