Rapist - not guilty - but guilty

  • Thread starter Thread starter Johnmelad502
  • Start date Start date
All of the above semantics pale into insignificance, when you consider the average intelligence of a Jury.

Members of a jury are always of average intelligence. :roll:

Members of say a 1000 juries would have an average intelligence.
Any single Jury could well be above or below this level...... :roll:

It's time for professional Juries, who have demonstrated an ability to understand the intricacies of trials.
 
All of the above semantics pale into insignificance, when you consider the average intelligence of a Jury.

Members of a jury are always of average intelligence. :roll:

Members of say a 1000 juries would have an average intelligence.
Any single Jury could well be above or below this level...... :roll:

By your reckoning, members of 1,000,000 juries would have an average intelligence. Any 1000 juries from this 1,000,000 could well be above or below this level.
 
that's exactly the point though, you say he's guilty as hell because you know he's done it before, but based solely on the evidence of the case, 12 people decided that he wasn't..

you cannot know for sure that he did or did not do what he's accused of this time, and have based your claim on a biased view..

I shoplifted a handful of sweets when I was 12 because it was a rush and all my mates were doing it.. does that make me a hardened criminal who will steal the fillings from your teeth while you're not looking?
no..

or more to the point after reading this in another post you started...
1. I pinched some money off of a collection plate in my local church.
does that make you a career thief? if you were accused of syphoning money from the works bank account, should we hear about a self confessed theft from your past?

He raped a 7 year old girl 5 times on two separate occasions and admitted it, I don't give a monkeys kuss if he was innocent this time (which he was not) I would see him locked away just for breathing.

Please don't lecture me in a way that seems to suggest that you are defending this pondlife paedophile. I would see him locked up just for breathing. :evil:

There are two problems with this 'It was him before, so it must be him again' way of thinking.....

1) Suspicion has probably only fallen on him because of his previous history. The case needs to then be able to stand on its own, which a jury decided it didn't.

2) If they have the same knee-jerk reaction as you, and find him guilty purely based on previous convictions, then that means someone guilty goes free, possibly to do it again.
 
It's time for professional Juries, who have demonstrated an ability to understand the intricacies of trials.
But how would you become a 'professional juror'? Do a course? make judgement on 'x' number of trials?

It would inevitably become a profession, and probably require some form of qualification to apply...and there goes the theory of a 'jury of your peers'.

And guess what...it would just become a job instead of a duty.

Deluks has already said they wanted to get home...imagine that type of justice on a day-to-day basis...

Not a good idea IMO..
 
Would you keep a rabid dog in with your kids and hope it got better and didn't bite them in the meantime? No? Then why do we allow this scum to wander freely about in society to prey on our kids? Obviously the punishment he received wasn't effective in that hes out able to commit more offences, so it wasn't long enough, and the punishment, and the threat of more of the same, doesn't seem to have deterred the offending.
Once a kiddy fiddler always one. Don't worry about driving them underground put them under, six feet!
The reason that previous convictions aren't read out prior to a jury retiring to consider its verdict is that too many juries were applying common sense to the fact that if you've done 29 previous burglaries, kiddie rapes or whatever the chances are that you'd done it again. This is bad for lawyers as their clients were in prison and unable to put more work their way on legal aid. Therefore the lawyers changed the rules. Having exposed our M.P's as the greedy trough swilling ****e they are next hopefully will be the legal profession. Lets see who made the most from legal aid last year. Who made the most suing the NHS.
 
Once a kiddy fiddler always one.
Not always the case but a good rule of thumb IMO.

We must err on the side of caution where the welfare of children is concerned as they cannot protect themselves.

Bring back capital punishment, put them out of their misery and save us a fortune in taxes.

We could always execute them by hanging them up by their tackle and waiting for them to starve to death to save on the lethal injection.

MW
 
Once a kiddy fiddler always one.
Not always the case but a good rule of thumb IMO.

We must err on the side of caution where the welfare of children is concerned as they cannot protect themselves.

Bring back capital punishment, put them out of their misery and save us a fortune in taxes.

We could always execute them by hanging them up by their tackle and waiting for them to starve to death to save on the lethal injection.

MW
Paedo's, once convicted, should be chemically castrated, and have their skin dyed purple, jail sentance not necessary.

Wotan
 
I thought this was about court procedures...

Instead we're getting suggestions from the looney brigade... :wink:
 
As for juries, is there not the quote taken from the privie wall at the Old Bailey" I'm about to be tried by 12 people to stupid to get off jury duty" :D
 
Back
Top