Lots of postings on C4P about legal cases, police, justice etc.
So here you go. See how you get on with a "law case" and what your verdict is...
Takes about half an hour.
www.open.ac.uk/openlearn/society/the-law/criminology/whats-your-verdict
And don't shoot the messenger - just bringing it to your attention, not advocating it.
|
The "comparing your views" page says that "16% of people correctly predicted a not guilty verdict" - however, the red bar indicates that 16% of people thought he was guilty! The thing's wrongly coded. It also says that 22% think that a guilty verdict would be fair.
I thought that he'd be found not guilty, and that it was a fair verdict.
I thought he'd get community service - and that it was "light".
I thought he was in fact probably guilty.
Having been a juror in a similar but not identical case, in that case I thought "guilty". The person was found not guilty on a majority verdict. His oppo had already admitted the offence in another court. Hm.
Had I to serve on another jury, I'd ask more questions during the trial.
|
I think the stats pages were confusing, partly due to the version A and version B trial results being mixed together.
Perfectly reasonable little case as an exercise, although practically they rarely reach trial.
The CPS might accept a plea to simple possession - he's admitted that in interview.
Or the guy would plead to supply 'on a basis' - usually that he was holding the drugs for somebody else - known as 'warehousing'.
Less serious, because he doesn't admit dealing drugs to members of the community.
Given credit for a guilty plea, his barrister would then be hopeful of keeping him out of jail.
Community service was never an option in this case, the guy's bad back means he's unsuitable.
It's quite a problem, there are lot of apparently fit young men who appear in court, but who are on disability benefits.
Sometimes it's laughable when you hear how the coppers have chased the lad through half a dozen back gardens and found him hiding on the roof of a shed.
"But he's medically unfit to work," your honour.
As regards FT asking more questions the next time he's a juror, the opportunities for jurors to ask questions are very limited.
|
>> As regards FT asking more questions the next time he's a juror, the opportunities for
>> jurors to ask questions are very limited.
I have no idea where you get that particular gem of misinformation. Perhaps you will say.
|
...I have no idea where you get that particular gem of misinformation...
The jurors cannot ask questions during the trial.
They may submit written questions from their jury room.
Even then, there are lots of rules as to what can and cannot be answered.
They cannot, for example, seek new evidence.
Few jury panels ask questions, and if they do, it is usually only one or two.
|
Iffy,
You obviously have a wide experience of the Crown Court. Are you actually employed in one (as I've somtimes suspected) or are you a reporter concentrating on the CC (as I thought I read on this site)?
|
Mostly the latter, although I've been doing other stuff in the last few months.
Anyway, I'm not the story, don't want to end up like Andy Coulson and have to resign. :)
Here's a case of a juror who asked questions which had a very unfortunate ending:
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1046752/Manslaughter-trial-collapses-sleuth-juror-carries-investigation-case.html
No retrial.
The poor man's widow said: 'We've been robbed of justice by the stupidity of one man who has effectively brought this case to its knees.
'Dale Patterson has walked free from court to pick up from where he left off while we must return to continue living our life sentence. It's so unjust.
'The juror said he was trying to get a feel for the case, but on several occasions the judge warned him and his fellow jurors to try it on the evidence alone.'
|
>> Mostly the latter, although I've been doing other stuff in the last few months.
At one time you tried to make it seem that you were a policeman.
>> Here's a case of a juror who asked questions which had a very unfortunate ending:
>>
>> www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1046752/Manslaughter-trial-collapses-sleuth-juror-carries-investigation-case.html
This is, as you might possibly have been able to work out, completely different from a juror asking a question via a note - from the jury benches or the jury room - and both are possible, again, as you should, but do not appear to, know.
|
...This is, as you might possibly have been able to work out, completely different from a juror asking a question via a note...
Yes, very different, this juror used three notes and maps to ask his questions.
The jury in a court case is isolated, it does not routinely ask questions, and no questions - other than the obvious one - are routinely asked of it.
|
>> The jury in a court case is isolated, it does not routinely ask questions
But you said "The jurors cannot ask questions during the trial", which is wrong.
I think that jurors are sometimes reluctant to ask questions, for fear of looking silly. They should ask questions if necessary. It's their duty.
|
The jurors have the facility to ask procedural or perhaps legal questions of, or through, the judge.
I think what Iffy meant was that they cannot question witnesses or (directly) aks counsel to amplify their arguments
|
An interesting academic exercise, in looking at respondents values, preconceptions etc. Would the 'facts' be presented/defended in such a simplistic way in practice?
If the CPS really make their decisions to proceed based on ' facts' as presented here, surely we must then question the whole basis of policing and prosecutions. Most respondents to the survey, (if I have understood it correctly), would find for Not Guilty, at all stages, so why ever proceed with the case, using up limited resources.
The fact that he 'proceeded at speed' thro a redlight was more likely to cause significant danger with possible injury/death than the possession/supply of a small quantity of cannabis. So prosecute the driving offence, with a much greater chance of conviction.
|
A court case for cannabis possession for personal use?
The CPS are being portrayed as idiots.
Someone persuade me it is not so...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 15:34
|
...A court case for cannabis possession for personal use?...
The case revolved around 250g or 10oz of cannabis.
In court terms, that's quite a lot.
The 'bulk buying for personal use' defence is one that is often used.
|
Since about 13 million people use cannabis annually.. the law and the idiots who reclassified to B from C are in disrepute..
I watch all these police programs on the war against drugs.. Waste of money seeing how drug taking in the UK has grown 1000% or so in the past 2 decades... and using a drug case as an example means about 25% of the readers of the case will be cannabis users...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 26 Jan 11 at 15:45
|
A legal amusement - FotheringtonTomas
