I agree its worrying that crime like rape has (acording to above site) a less than 5.6% chance of conviction, from reported rape. But i fear this might just be more shock melodrama, with an agenda.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/programmes/?id=verdict
But most important why have Jeffrey Archer on a program like this?
If its a case of one persons word against another, a convicted purger shouldn't be allowed to even pretend to be on a jury.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
When I first heard about this program I must admit I was pretty outraged. A crime like rape is not something that people should be finding entertainment out of - I shudder and cringe every time the subject comes up on most TV shows. Usually it is handled fairly tastefully and well - so that's OK.
Having seen the trailer for this program (though I missed it last week), I now have mixed feelings. I don't like the idea of staging the whole thing like that, or having celebrity jurors, but then it seems to have some potentially interesting situations arising within the jury and might highlight some real sticking points with the justice system.
Personally I don't see the problem with having Jeffrey Archer on the jury - he has served his time and he would be in no way related to this case in court - thus the perjury charge would have no immediate consequences.
-Winning isn't everything, but losing is nothing
I'm reserving judgement on this program until it's concluded (later tonight) ..... though I will say that Stan Collymore is winding me up. He needs to let other people have a say without trying to talk over them.
He also seems to think that the only "evidence" is the factual evidence, like DNA, and is totally discounting oral evidence. He needs to realise that oral testimony IS evidence, and that when you have two competing and opposing sets of testimony, a major role of a juror is to decide which you believe, how sure you are of it and how that factors into the degree of certainty you have in guilt, when deciding whether to vote to convict or not.
That's a major part of the reason why jury service can be so challenging. If you get it wrong (especially in a case like this where, were it real, substantial jail time would pretty much inevitably be involved), by definition, you either convict an innocent man or you let a brutal rapist(s) walk free. Neither option is very palatable, yet it's in the nature of jury service that even after you deliver your verdict, you have to live with maybe never knowing if it was right or not?
Just as a matter of fact, while he'll have to wait a few more years before he'd be eligible, Archer WILL be able to serve on a jury in the future, and could conceivably find himslef on a jury in a rape trial like this.Originally Posted by TheAnimus
People with criminal convictions in their past (with a fairly small number of exceptions, the broadest being anyone with a 'life' sentence, can serve on juries. Enough time (10 years) just needs to have elapsed.
But this case is fictional, and whatever our personal opinions of Archer may be, I don't see why he shouldn't serve on a fictional jury in a TV show. Ironically, Sara Payne is more likely to be ineligible (once Archer's 10 years have passed).
EDIT - Or rather, not so much ineligible, as 'challenged' in a case like this.
Last edited by Saracen; 15-02-2007 at 09:25 PM.
Watching them deliberating now. As far as I'm concerned no charge has been reasonably proven. Everyone is concerned that they may let a guilty person walk free, but that should be of no concern otherwise they are convicting on prejudice. Even if the smallest of doubts exist, they should find them not guilty. It may be a hard line to take but it is just unfortunate that crimes of this nature are so difficult to prove.
It's also blatantly obvious that no matter what happens, the re-enactment will just show the opposite
They should not convict on the basis of concern about letting a guilty party go free. That, I agree. But that doesn't mean they have to dismiss that knowledge. Awareness of that may bring home to a (real) jury the gravity of their task.
As for "smallest doubt", that isn't the required standard. The standard is that jurors must be "sure". This used to be "beyond reasonable doubt" but that form of words is not commonly used any more.
The problem is, what does "sure" mean?
That little problem is left to the juror to determine, and the Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) has stated that it does not believe further attempts at definition or clarification should be given.
Yet, 30 seconds with a dictionary search elicited a raft of definitions, including :-
1) Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain
and
2) Confident, as of something awaited or expected
There's a world of difference (in my view, anyway) between "confident of" and "impossible to doubt or dispute". Certainly, the older (but still legal and valid) defintion of "beyond reasonable doubt" does not go as far as defintion 1), nor does it go as far as the "smallest of doubts" that you mentioned. It certainly permits that you can convict when the possibility exists, because it leaves "reasonable doubt" as the standard to be achieved.
And personally, I feel that this is a reasonable thing, too. If you set absolute, cast-iron, stone-cold beyond question certainty as the standard, very few convictions would be achieved and the public interest would not (IMHO) be served by that.
The thing is, you and I could both be serving on the same jury in the same case, and I could be applying definition 1) to "sure", and you could be applying definition 2). As the legal profession leaves it to the jury to interpret that, nobody could tell either of us we were wrong to be applying that definition in determining our vote.
Isn't it comforting to know that if you're the defendant, your verdict (and perhaps whether your ass gets locked up) could depend on each juror's understanding of "sure", or which dictionary they used?
I didn't watch this programme, but I know the general idea of the show. Hence I know that the trial was scripted and had no basis in history. So what the hell was the point? If they had actually acted out the transcript and used the evidence from a real rape trial then it would have been interesting, I would have bothered to watch it and the making of it might have actually had some value.
It reminds me of a daytime play I watched a couple of years ago written by that moron that made brookside and hollyoaks. It was a 'date-rape' trial and based on what I saw I would have acquitted. Indeed it was quite obvious that the man was innocent in the eyes of the law and that there was no evidence at all that pointed to his guilt. The play's jury also acquitted to scenes of much sobbing from the accuser. The credits rolled and as a gratuitous P.S. it said that the girl killed herself (I think I remember that right) and that the guy actually did it and was jailed at a later date after raping someone else. I was furious because this was just pandering to all the people who think that all a girl has to do is regret having had sex with someone for it to be called rape.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote