|
|
Posted by Citizen Bob on 11/08/06 14:06
On Wed, 08 Nov 2006 08:31:28 GMT, Paul Hyett
<pah@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> wrote:
>Just because the defendant could be convicted on a majority verdict,
>doesn't mean they *didn't* commit the crime they are accused of, though.
Just because the defendant was convicted on a majoruty verdict doesn't
mean they did commit the crime they are accused of, though.
If one juror votes Not Guilty, that must be taken as prima facie
evidence of Reasonable Doubt. Under common law juresprudence a
defendant is innocent until proven guilty beyond all reasonable doubt.
Why have a jury if the state can so easily demonize a defendant in the
eyes of 80% of the jury?
The requirement for unanimous verdicts was put there for a good reason
- to make absolutely certain that the defendant is guilty beyond all
reasonable doubt. If you do the math you will discover that the
probability that 12 people will be correct in their judgement if they
all vote the same is almost 100%. It is not 100% for 10 jurors. The
British, who invented common law, knew this - that's why they chose 12
jurors and not 10.
Majority verdicts are an abomination, as Tony Martin and Barry Hasting
found out the hard way. American studies have shown that 80% of the
jury makes up its mind about the verdict after opening argument. You
know this because you watched 12 Angry Men.
--
"First and last, it's a question of money. Those men who own the earth
make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or
pen around what they have, and they fix the law so the fellow on the
outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of
the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced to do
justice. We have no system for doing justice, not the slightest in the world."
--Clarence Darrow
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|