News just in...
Huntley found guilty of the two murders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3312551.stm
RIP Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman
News just in...
Huntley found guilty of the two murders
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3312551.stm
RIP Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman
av it ya bast
Times like this I wish that the death sentence had not been abolished.
He deserves everything he gets and alot more
RIP Huntley too (Rot In Prison that is).....
A just verdict in both cases; I'm very pleased he's been convicted, and also that Maxine Carr has been correctly convicted of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charge, but acquitted on the assisting an offender charges.
thank god for that, sicko >:/
Good that he going to prison (as well as hell if there is a hell).. but I still feel for the families of those two girls
"In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
You were a member of the jury were you?Originally posted by nichomach
A just verdict in both cases; I'm very pleased he's been convicted, and also that Maxine Carr has been correctly convicted of the conspiracy to pervert the course of justice charge, but acquitted on the assisting an offender charges.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
Although I noticed the jury were not unanimous in their verdict with him.
No, but I have been following the case reports - and does not being a member of the jury bar me from having an opinion? And stating it? Get over yourself.Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
You were a member of the jury were you?
justice may be done, but I hope someone will get him on the inside
You can have an opinion yeah sure, I just dont understand your use of the word "correctly", as in "has been correctly convicted". It's not a black or white situation and decisions made in a court of law are not "correct" or incorrect. They are indeed opinions and nothing more.
The only person that can claim a decision is correct or incorrect is the accused, IMHO.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
Look, it's quite simple; the charge of conspiracy was proven when she lied to the police. Assisting an offender requires that the accused know, or believe that the person they are assisting IS an offender. Absent any other evidence (and there was none) and in the face of her statement that she didn't believe Huntley to be guilty of a crime, the benefit of any doubt had to be given her in the determination of whether she was guilty or not guilty. That benefit was given, and she was acquitted on that charge. The verdict, therefore, was "correct". Any problem with that? BTW, don't, please, hector me about decisions made in a court of law; I don't choose to put LLB(Hons) after my name, because that's not what I do professionally, but I could, OK?Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
You can have an opinion yeah sure, I just dont understand your use of the word "correctly", as in "has been correctly convicted". It's not a black or white situation and decisions made in a court of law are not "correct" or incorrect. They are indeed opinions and nothing more.
The only person that can claim a decision is correct or incorrect is the accused, IMHO.
I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the decision in a case was made by the barrister.
Look, all I am saying is that it is not for external observers to decide what is "correct" or not. That's all. I had difficulty with the word "correct". I dont want to get drawn into a technical legal argument (because I would lose ) but I dont think it is right to define a judgement by a jury as "correct" or "incorrect".
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
Juries don't GIVE judgements, juries give verdicts. They make a determination as to the facts of the case and return a verdict of guilty or not guilty after receiving instruction from the judge as to the law to be applied. The jury's verdict is paramount even if perverse in the face of the law (look at the acquittal of people like Clive Ponting). Given that juries sometimes do return verdicts which are manifestly perverse, and given that these verdicts are returned by lay people, not lawyers, I think it perfectly proper to reach an opinion as to whether the verdict they return is correct, and perfectly proper to also state that opinion.
If you have an opinion on the case that's fine. I just find it a little bizarre that you claim that opinion to be "correct", that's all.
"All our beliefs are being challenged now, and rightfully so, they're stupid." - Bill Hicks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)