WPC Julia Jeapes

[Roch]

I think that's pretty much a question based on complete assumption - by the same token under this theory, Corbyn is likely to let the guilty walk free?

I had already thought of that. But then are we saying three of the Bridgewater and all of the Shrewsbury convictions shouldn't have been overturned?  If Patel and Corbyn both preside over 50 trials but Patel is more likely to wrongly convict, we cannot say 'oh well, what about all the times she correctly convicted?' as a defence for her wrongly convicting.

[Zoso]

I had already thought of that. But then are we saying three of the Bridgewater and all of the Shrewsbury convictions shouldn't have been overturned?  If Patel and Corbyn both preside over 50 trials but Patel is more likely to wrongly convict, we cannot say 'oh well, what about all the times she correctly convicted?' as a defence for her wrongly convicting.

You didn't say 'more likely to wrongly convict' - you said more likely to find an innocent person guilty. Corbyn may find as many guilty defendants innocent. What are you going to say in that case ' Oh well, what about all the times he correctly convicted - even though a few slipped through the net and reoffended' as a defence for wrongly NOT acquitting?

[Roch]

You didn't say 'more likely to wrongly convict' - you said more likely to find an innocent person guilty. Corbyn may find as many guilty defendants innocent. What are you going to say in that case ' Oh well, what about all the times he correctly convicted - even though a few slipped through the net and reoffended' as a defence for wrongly NOT acquitting?

This is sidestepping our argument. Trying to reverse the argument by flipping it on its head is not dealing the points we are discussing. Also, I expect Corbyn is more honest and has more scruples and is less gung ho than Patel. Those are not necessarily qualities which lead to him presiding over genuinely guilty people walking free. Regarding your other point, an innocent person found guilty, is a person wrongfully convicted. So I don't understand what you mean.

[Zoso]

This is sidestepping our argument. Trying to reverse the argument by flipping it on its head is not dealing the points we are discussing. Also, I expect Corbyn is more honest and has more scruples and is less gung ho than Patel. Those are not necessarily qualities which lead to him presiding over genuinely guilty people walking free. Regarding your other point, an innocent person found guilty, is a person wrongfully convicted. So I don't understand what you mean.

And a guilty person walking free is NOT an improvement to the system! I don't know anything about Corbyn's honesty but I do know you are a little biased towards him. I'm a fan of neither so maybe your choices were wrong for this scenario - either way is bad. Seeing everyone as a crim (no smoke without fire) is bad because it isn't 'innocent until proven guilty' but allowing a guilty person to walk free, especially a serious offender is putting people at risk. I guess the moral here is, never let Corbyn or Patel reside over a trial 

[Bubo bubo]

And a guilty person walking free is NOT an improvement to the system! I don't know anything about Corbyn's honesty but I do know you are a little biased towards him. I'm a fan of neither so maybe your choices were wrong for this scenario - either way is bad. Seeing everyone as a crim (no smoke without fire) is bad because it isn't 'innocent until proven guilty' but allowing a guilty person to walk free, especially a serious offender is putting people at risk. I guess the moral here is, never let Corbyn or Patel reside over a trial 

Some thoughts.

The TRUST of the innocent is the liars  most useful TOOL.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.
Malcolm X

[David1819]

Hypothetical question. Let's say both Priti Patel and Jeremy Corbyn are judges. If you were innocent, who would you rather be tried by? What's the betting that, as an innocent person,  you've got far more chance of being found guilty in a trial presided over by Patel than you have in one presided over by Corbyn?  Does that translate in to Patel knowingly convicting innocent people? Not necessarily.

Here all the Judge does is act as a referee while the two sides try to convince a Jury of their narrative. As an innocent person you only need to be concerned about having a competent and effective defence team and an impartial Jury.

Most countries in Europe and Latin America don't have Juries. Instead they have a panel of three to five Judges and their verdicts must be unanimous to convict.

Your hypothetical question seems to involve Priti Patel and Jeremy Corbyn being judges in a system that doesn't exist.

[David1819]

This is sidestepping our argument. Trying to reverse the argument by flipping it on its head is not dealing the points we are discussing. Also, I expect Corbyn is more honest and has more scruples and is less gung ho than Patel. Those are not necessarily qualities which lead to him presiding over genuinely guilty people walking free. Regarding your other point, an innocent person found guilty, is a person wrongfully convicted. So I don't understand what you mean.

If you were the defendant. Would you rather have Corbyn defending you while Patel prosecuting you or Corbyn prosecuting you while Patel defending you?

[Roch]

Here all the Judge does is act as a referee while the two sides try to convince a Jury of their narrative. As an innocent person you only need to be concerned about is having a competent and effective defence team and an impartial Jury.

Most countries in Europe and Latin America don't have Juries. Instead they have a panel of three to five Judges and their verdicts must be unanimous to convict.

Your hypothetical question seems to involve Priti Patel and Jeremy Corbyn being judges in a system that doesn't exist.

Well it arguably does exist - because judges are from various backgrounds and with different leanings / connections / personal experiences etc. A football referree is also supposed to be neutral. However, some may get reputations for certain failings, that others do not. Some may be card happy and some over-lenient. Some may be less competent than others. Some more focussed, some more intelligent etc.

[Roch]

If you were the defendant. Would you rather have Corbyn defending you while Patel prosecuting you or Corbyn prosecuting you while Patel defending you?

Interesting question but I can't see Patel as a defence barrister. I suppose I can't see Corbyn as a prosecution barrister 

[Roch]

And a guilty person walking free is NOT an improvement to the system! I don't know anything about Corbyn's honesty but I do know you are a little biased towards him. I'm a fan of neither so maybe your choices were wrong for this scenario - either way is bad. Seeing everyone as a crim (no smoke without fire) is bad because it isn't 'innocent until proven guilty' but allowing a guilty person to walk free, especially a serious offender is putting people at risk. I guess the moral here is, never let Corbyn or Patel reside over a trial 

Maybe I should compared Patel with an 'average judge' rather than Corbyn

[David1819]

Well it arguably does exist - because judges are from various backgrounds and with different leanings / connections / personal experiences etc. A football referree is also supposed to be neutral. However, some may get reputations for certain failings, that others do not. Some may be card happy and some over-lenient. Some may be less competent than others. Some more focussed, some more intelligent etc.

That is why they have three to five Judges and their decision must be unanimous.

Interestingly, In Japan the verdicts are decided by three Judges and six jurors knows as "lay judges".

[Zoso]

Well it arguably does exist - because judges are from various backgrounds and with different leanings / connections / personal experiences etc. A football referree is also supposed to be neutral. However, some may get reputations for certain failings, that others do not. Some may be card happy and some over-lenient. Some may be less competent than others. Some more focussed, some more intelligent etc.

It's not really human nature to be neutral - even with the best will in the world.

[Zoso]

Some thoughts.

The TRUST of the innocent is the liars  most useful TOOL.

The media's the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses.
Malcolm X

True and increasingly more powerful (and dangerous) in world full of fake news.

[Bubo bubo]

True and increasingly more powerful (and dangerous) in world full of fake news.

Further thoughts.

If the police construct a false case against an individual whether guilty or innocent the likelihood must be that any jury would be more likely to convict. This is because the case evidence has been assembled with the precise objective of obtaining a guilty verdict and because most policemen are not corrupt.

[Roch]

It's not really human nature to be neutral - even with the best will in the world.

Agree. It just be very difficult to retain neutrality. Would a truly neutral judge ensure that they keep a space in their consideration, for the possibility of corrupt policing practices? If not, then why not?