The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lindy and Michael Chamberlain > Comments

Lindy and Michael Chamberlain : Comments

By Crispin Hull, published 5/3/2012

Half a life-time is a long time to take to prove you innocence.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All
If i should ever run afoul of the law i would not want a jury .I would ask for a judge only decision.What do we ordinary people know of forensics etc?
Posted by haygirl, Monday, 5 March 2012 3:01:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Miscarriage of (justice?) can indeed be cruel, but the article is part of Crispin Hull’s often cogently-expressed distaste for juries. I tend to disagree with him in spite of his legal expertise, and my lack of it, and bring up a couple of thoughts:
(Previously?) revered Lord Denning, regarding the Birmingham Six in 1988, saying: "Hanging ought to be retained for murder most foul. We shouldn't have all these campaigns to get the Birmingham Six released if they'd been hanged. They'd have been forgotten, and the whole community would be satisfied... It is better that some innocent men remain in jail than that the integrity of the English judicial system be impugned."
With Australia hell-bent on Americanism, the possibility of elected judges - and as a result, some aspirants for hire?
Our own Harry Gibbs, Lord Denning-like, quick to throw one of his fellow judges to the wolves for legal asthetic appearance rather than wait for facts to be determined during legal process.
No, juries are not perfect, but - as in their 19th century findings of felons being guilty of misappropriation “to the value of 20 shillings” rather than of the hanging-offence which a value of a guinea or more would bring - maybe they still are worth their keep; hopefully. I don’t expect perfection either way, but am swayed on the jury side.
Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 6 March 2012 1:42:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Colinsett - I also tend to your preference for juries as less likely, on the whole, to judge harshly and wrongly. Lindy Chamberlain has had a terrible time of it, and the jury in her case let her down badly. But as you say, on balance, trial by jury is a safety precaution that works more often than not. Google "Anthony Gray Mockery and the Right to Trial by Jury" for an extended argument in favor of juries. A single sitting magistrate (or judge) is LOGICALLY more vulnerable to corruption, even when 'greater knowledge' or presumed greater sophistication might be thought to lead to more sound opinions.
Posted by veritas, Wednesday, 7 March 2012 12:07:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy