Quote:
Originally Posted by Pyramid*
What we think 'in our minds' is light years away from being on a jury and being party to every piece of salient information that is available - it is upto those responsible to prove without any reasonable doubt that a person is guilty.
If they cannot do so: they are either 'wrong' in their assumption that the person is guily / cannot provide evidence to back up their case / are inept at their job / or do not have enought evidence (even circumstantial - ie: Nat Fraser was found guilty based on circumstantial evidence).
|
Obviously, I've already said I believe it is the correct basis for a legal system and trial, however juries are only human and are not infallible and do make mistakes sometimes, just because someone has not been declared guilty by a court doesn't mean we aren't free to consider them so based on the information available
Threaded Mode