[Novo]

Well the Judge has spoken and in the eyes of the law he isn't a murderer and I guess that's all that matters for now

[arista]

Originally Posted by NovoBaratheon

Well the Judge has spoken and in the eyes of the law he isn't a murderer and I guess that's all that matters for now

The Judge is Corrupt



Thats what matters here



Corrupt Nation

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by NovoBaratheon

Well the Judge has spoken and in the eyes of the law he isn't a murderer and I guess that's all that matters for now

It does indeed,I do however feel there is more likely than not a guilty verdict coming for the similar to manslaughter charge from her tomorrow.
Not certain by any means as I felt she would have had little hesitation saying so to that today.

I actually thought the Judge had really looked into everything really carefully.

For me,I prefer a jury system of law for those pleading not guilty but I do think this Judge has done a really good job.

[user104658]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

For me,I prefer a jury system of law for those pleading not guilty but I do think this Judge has done a really good job.

Yes, the whole thing is a little bit too Judge Dredd for me.

I would prefer a jury made up of experts, personally; psychologists, doctors, criminologists, forensic scientists etc.

A jury of peers is something that would terrify me if I was on trial for something I hadn't done. A random sample of the general public is, unfortunately, by definition likely to have a very "average" average intelligence level and frankly... average intelligence falls somewhere between "a bit slow" and "moderately retarded". Average Mr Public is very easily lead and reactionary. You also have the (huge) problem of people changing their stance to go with the majority simply so that everyone gets to go home / can get back to their jobs.

So yeah, I'd have a similar system with a large pool of potential jurors but with people only being signed up to that pool once they've achieved certain qualifications... and it would just be an expected part of the job for people going into those fields.

[Angelika]

Originally Posted by Toy Soldier

Yes, the whole thing is a little bit too Judge Dredd for me.

I would prefer a jury made up of experts, personally; psychologists, doctors, criminologists, forensic scientists etc.

A jury of peers is something that would terrify me if I was on trial for something I hadn't done. A random sample of the general public is, unfortunately, by definition likely to have a very "average" average intelligence level and frankly... average intelligence falls somewhere between "a bit slow" and "moderately retarded". Average Mr Public is very easily lead and reactionary. You also have the (huge) problem of people changing their stance to go with the majority simply so that everyone gets to go home / can get back to their jobs.

.

We should start pushing for judicial reforms and abolish jury of peers in GB. It's very risky.

Just imagine a jury made up of Pauline from BB, James Jordan, Dee, Jo Essex, Ryland etc. They can't be better than experts with proven track records.

[Angelika]

[QUOTE=joeysteele;7260676I prefer a jury system of law for those pleading not guilty but I do think this Judge has done a really good job.[/QUOTE]

South African law is a very sophisticated modern system derived from Roman-Dutch, Westminster and Customs connected to the population. Its fair and relies on leading legal experts, Judges, to examine and decide the case. The Judge is able to chose Accessors to hear the evidence and give opinions. The Accessors are sometimes other judges or experts in fields relating to the type of evidence the case may provide.

I would rather have my fate was determined by experts rather than random individuals drawn from our society.

The Judge and two Accessors in the Pistorious case have done a sterling job applying the law and sifting through the hours of evidence.