0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Hello aprilvery difficult to get a group of people to agree. I have given this some thought and suspect I would be a nighmare on a Jury especially if my other half was on it as well a unanimous decision would never be reached
hi mertolAnd what do you suppose would have happened to a certain mr bamber if his trial had taken place in Korea ?Oh, the ironyJim
Basically, what I am saying, is that the system of trial by jury needs to be changed so that trials are much more fairer, because at the moment there is a great deal of bias depending upon which trial judge you get - I can clearly remember Michael Mansfield, QC, commenting on two of the three appeal court judges who heard my appeal, he said we were up against it, because two of the judges who sat in judgement at my appeal were pro police, who would not accept any allegation of dishonesty and deceipt on the part of the police. He told me this and other things before we even set foot into the court of appeal, so nobody can ever hope to convince me that fiddling of case judgements doesn,t go on, because it does, and it did...This bias could be eradicated at the stroke of a pen, if for example, two judges sat on the bench during trials, where one judge sided with the prosecutions arguments against the accused, and sought to interpret all the available evidence in favour of guilt, whilst the other judge sided with defence arguments and sought to interpret all the available evidence in favour of an acquital. At the end of a case, both judges would present a biased summing up to the jury, where one favours a conviction, whilst the other favours an acquital...Trials should be fair, not biased...
A fair trial is like asking for a fair MP mike asking a hell of a lot these days
A what?
