Thread: Discharge Without Conviction

Originally Posted by Sidney

Yep .. juries don't work because of individual competence of the 12 good men and true - they mostly work because of the group dynamic, the ability of a group to produce an outcome that exceeds an individual response, and the strict control of the court on emotional inputs and relevance of evidence that is presented to the group. The error rate is designed to favour the innocent by about 100/1 with the result that more of the guilty are presumed innocent than is accurate and that is the price we pay to have public connection with the justice system.

It is a constant question of competence but overall it sort of works...

i spent 3 days as a juror. it was a case of one crim versus the others that dobbed him in. there were 4-5 charges but the witnesses admitted at most times they were so damn stoned they didnt member correctly . all in all 12 jurors, 3 days, one p.d sentence

Originally Posted by gonetropo

i spent 3 days as a juror. it was a case of one crim versus the others that dobbed him in. there were 4-5 charges but the witnesses admitted at most times they were so damn stoned they didnt member correctly . all in all 12 jurors, 3 days, one p.d sentence

In all, it was three days of your time wasted, the court personnel, tax payer funded defense and the cost of the bloke to administer the PD sentence. You have to wonder where all this is headed for.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Yep .. juries don't work because of individual competence of the 12 good men and true - they mostly work because of the group dynamic, the ability of a group to produce an outcome that exceeds an individual response, and the strict control of the court on emotional inputs and relevance of evidence that is presented to the group. The error rate is designed to favour the innocent by about 100/1 with the result that more of the guilty are presumed innocent than is accurate and that is the price we pay to have public connection with the justice system.

It is a constant question of competence but overall it sort of works...

Thanks for the explanation, Sidney. Overall it's also sort of scary.

Yep and are so far out of touch!!

Actually I am pretty sure that provocation was in effect until Clayton Weatherstone killed his girlfriend? It was removed in response to that. So far as that is concerned it is again something not understood by our commentary teams on here.

Assume for a moment in time that you caught somebody raping your small daughter and the resultant blow you applied to the back of his head killed him.... why should the court not consider provocation as contributory to the act?

Just because a defence team claims evidence of contributory behaviour, does not mean the court has to find that behaviour justified or not, relevant or not, legitimate or not. To have that information not be considered by the court, just because the public are too emotionally immature and too ignorant to understand that a fair justice system is not interfered with by a stupid public or stupid politicians, is absurd.

@Sidney What do you think of the French system with three judges instead of a Jury? Or the system somewhere in Scandinavia where they have professional juries with Qualifications in law?

Every system has an error rate... pros and cons...

I quite like the inquisitorial systems that have the court as agent of the state seeking to establish what happened rather than the adversarial approach that we have have, but I haven't ever done any comparative research on the 2 systems.

The competence issue is better dealt with in other systems, but the impartiality aspects have more questions about them. The adversarial system also has the appearance of robust challenge of the powerful state which doesn't happen in inquisitorial systems, but the argument is that the state is not prosecuting it is facilitating an appointed prosecutor and defence, in Inquisitorial systems..

Its sort of hard to know...

horseshit is horseshit sdidders regardless of whether its sniffed in tha kaikoura canyon or on top of mount everest
.secondly legal beagles(fuck knows ive dealt with enough over the years)are in fact overpaid debaters in a very artificial atmosphere beholden to ritual and ingratiation.
me .Id try a lot of these pricks in a military style orderly room -cheaper and we dont have to listen to cumspots drone on.
also the prick up befre the OC/CO is often very reluctant to repeat the episode
no doubt in you ethereal grandiose rich atmosphere youll refute all i say .

Originally Posted by kotuku

horseshit is horseshit sdidders regardless of whether its sniffed in tha kaikoura canyon or on top of mount everest
.secondly legal beagles(fuck knows ive dealt with enough over the years)are in fact overpaid debaters in a very artificial atmosphere beholden to ritual and ingratiation.
me .Id try a lot of these pricks in a military style orderly room -cheaper and we dont have to listen to cumspots drone on.
also the prick up befre the OC/CO is often very reluctant to repeat the episode
no doubt in you ethereal grandiose rich atmosphere youll refute all i say .

I agree with you Kotuku and would add that Sidney's horse must be about 25 Hands.

Hey I don't mind being responsible for shitting on those stupid enough to want to inhale. And from 25 hands too...

What you and yours don't seem quite capable of actually working out is that the world is a lot more complex than the military could actually run. And no-one actually wants them running anything. Including yourselves even if you can't work that out.

Originally Posted by Sidney

Hey I don't mind being responsible for shitting on those stupid enough to want to inhale. And from 25 hands too...

What you and yours don't seem quite capable of actually working out is that the world is a lot more complex than the military could actually run. And no-one actually wants them running anything. Including yourselves even if you can't work that out.

well it seems lawyers run NZ or are in prime positions in the system running it ,wether a lot of us like that or not .BTW-ive got a perfectly good brain Ill thank you to know ,again thats not the eclusive domain of lawyers (although obviously some think so).the world is complex-try workoing in mental health and see the resu;lts of its complexity!

Originally Posted by kotuku

well it seems lawyers run NZ or are in prime positions in the system running it ,wether a lot of us like that or not .BTW-ive got a perfectly good brain Ill thank you to know ,again thats not the eclusive domain of lawyers (although obviously some think so).the world is complex-try workoing in mental health and see the resu;lts of its complexity!

Lawyers, or legally educated people, form a large portion of people that run most western democracies. This is the necessary outcome of having any proper governance system that observes the rule of law. Law is very difficulty, it takes a lot of training to understand the Law. The law is probably the most complex "purely-man-made" science. Our laws today is the product of 1000 years of legal thinking of past lawyers, judges, and politicians.

25 past US presidents has passed the Bar, that is about 60%. that list includes most of the better ones such as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Lawyers, or legally educated people, form a large portion of people that run most western democracies. This is the necessary outcome of having any proper governance system that observes the rule of law. Law is very difficulty, it takes a lot of training to understand the Law. The law is probably the most complex "purely-man-made" science. Our laws today is the product of 1000 years of legal thinking of past lawyers, judges, and politicians.

25 past US presidents has passed the Bar, that is about 60%. that list includes most of the better ones such as Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR.

Bob Mugabe, Castro, Bill and Hilary Clinton.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Bob Mugabe, Castro, Bill and Hilary Clinton.

I would not call Mugabe and Castro's countries western democracies.

Yes the Clintons are both legally educated, so is Obama. In fact Obama was a bit of a legal scholar, president of of the law review of the number 1 law school in the world.

Btw no one is arguing that legally trained politicians are necessarily the best. Just that top politicians are often legally trained, due to the nature of the job.

Originally Posted by Tommy

Bob Mugabe, Castro, Bill and Hilary Clinton.

What's the point you are trying to make @Tommy ? In that list only 2 studied law... Mugabe was a teacher, Bill Clinton studied Politics, Philosophy & Economics.