Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:53 pm
Kosh
Moderator
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Sal Paradise wrote:No its not - the jury decide on the evidence provided whether they think the balance of probability suggests a murder or not.
Wrong.
Look - if you're going to advocate a major change to the UK justice system, don't you think it would be a good idea to have at least some clue as to how it operates first? Do a little research?
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 3:01 pm
Kosh
Moderator
Joined: Jul 31 2003 Posts: 36786 Location: Leafy Worcester, home of the Black Pear
Sal Paradise wrote:We could round in circles for ever - you either believe the likes of Ian Brady should be executed or you don't - so let's turn this on its head - why should Ian Brady not be executed? lack of evidence?
Would executing Brady serve any useful purpose whatsoever? No. It would not bring back those he murdered, it would not deter another maniac from doing the same thing, and it would not be any further protection for society.
Dress it up however you like, but those advocating the death penalty are simply looking for vengeance.
If murder is wrong, then it's wrong for the state to murder. Simple.
Hold on to me baby, his bony hands will do you no harm It said in the cards, we lost our souls to the Nameless One
What part of 'beyond reasonable doubt' are you finding difficult? Jurors have to be 100% certain of the defendant's guilt before they convict. That's 100% sure, beyond any reasonable doubt - not on a balance of probabilities (the standard of proof in (most) civil cases).
The woman I mentioned had the bodies found within the house as well. Should she have been killed? Or should we only reintroduce the death penalty for those who confess to their crimes? If so, can you see the obvious flaw in that scenario?
You're both wrong. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% certain. The word "reasonable" is important. If a defendant, eg Ian Huntley, puts forward a plausible defense it doesn't mean that he has to be acquitted on the basis that its 0.0000001% possible that it could have happened that way. That would mean having to prove beyond all doubt, which isnt the standard.
And that's part of the difficulty. "Reasonable" is subjective. Your reasonable doubt might be unreasonable, or fanciful, to me.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 4:14 pm
Rock God X
Player Coach
Joined: Oct 21 2006 Posts: 10852
Cibaman wrote:You're both wrong. Beyond reasonable doubt does not mean 100% certain. The word "reasonable" is important. If a defendant, eg Ian Huntley, puts forward a plausible defense it doesn't mean that he has to be acquitted on the basis that its 0.0000001% possible that it could have happened that way. That would mean having to prove beyond all doubt, which isnt the standard.
And that's part of the difficulty. "Reasonable" is subjective. Your reasonable doubt might be unreasonable, or fanciful, to me.
The juror has to be 100% certain that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the point I was making. They don't have to be 51% sure, 75% sure or even 90% sure. They have to be 100% convinced that the person committed the act that they are alleged to have committed. If the individual juror had a doubt about a person's guilt that they personally considered to be reasonable, they wouldn't be 100% sure.
Christianity: because you're so awful you made God kill himself.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 7:48 pm
Wire Yed
In The Arms of 13 Angels
Joined: Mar 15 2009 Posts: 20628
How can you say it's wrong to kill and then kill them to prove how wrong it is?
What i would do is the harsher the crime the less privilege you get in prison, the worst crime leaves you with a room and basic food and complete isolation.
Someone that doesn't pay a fine and gets a couple of weeks, they get the Playstation* and snooker table with Sky TV
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 2:15 am
Rooster Booster
International Chairman
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 7155 Location: Sydney 2000
A question for people.
Does a murder trial in the UK courts only need to be 10-2 and not a 12-0 vote on the jury, to reach a verdict? I think, from memory, this may be the case.
If so, beyond reasonable doubt only need apply to 10 people, so 2 can have doubt.
If true. Doesn't this make a mockery of the term "beyond reasonable doubt" with regards to capital punishment?
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:38 am
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
The Video Ref wrote:It's not. There are mandatory sentences, sentencing guidelines and case law precedents. In serious cases most defendants get a pre-sentencing report, which is prepared by the probation services and, amongst other things, details their probability of reoffending and danger to society.
Unduly harsh / lenient sentences can be appealed.
If the sentencing wasn't a subjective decision of the judge then everyone who committed a certain crime would get a the same sentence - take Chev Walker and Leon Price as examples both committed a similar offence - it could actually be argued Price's was actually worse, Chev got prison and Price got suspended!!
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:45 am
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Rock God X wrote:The juror has to be 100% certain that the person is guilty beyond reasonable doubt is the point I was making. They don't have to be 51% sure, 75% sure or even 90% sure. They have to be 100% convinced that the person committed the act that they are alleged to have committed. If the individual juror had a doubt about a person's guilt that they personally considered to be reasonable, they wouldn't be 100% sure.
So if a jury cannot get all jurors to convict they judge will accept a majority decision - that is 83% sure if its two who abstain - not understanding what you don't get?
No one knows either if a juror is 100% - they may still have some doubts but on balance they think the probability is that they did it they will convict that is not 100% sure.
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Post subject: Re: Irvine Patnick RIP (rot in pieces)
Posted: Sat Jan 05, 2013 7:51 am
Sal Paradise
International Chairman
Joined: Feb 27 2002 Posts: 18060 Location: On the road
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:No, that is completely wrong.
... but pleaded not guilty
... but assuming you mean Fred, he was not the only person who lived in the house, and was never convicted of any offence.
On the first point see comments below
Sutcliffe pleaded not guilty through insanity - not that he didn't do it, he had already confessed to the police - I think.
On the Wests I mean't Rose!!
Your job is to say to yourself on a job interview does the hiring manager likes me or not. If you aren't a particular manager's cup of tea, you haven't failed -- you've dodged a bullet.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 244 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
