Historic Crimes

[Just_A_Guy]

I think it was fundamentally the testimony of the two victims, who were related to each other.  I don't think there was any forensic evidence, because (IIRC) the charge wasn't that he actually had sexual intercourse with them; it was that he reached down their pants while he thought they were sleeping.

[yjacket]

2 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I think it was fundamentally the testimony of the two victims, who were related to each other.  I don't think there was any forensic evidence, because (IIRC) the charge wasn't that he actually had sexual intercourse with them; it was that he reached down their pants while he thought they were sleeping.

I really dislike the he said/she said cases and I also wish that the judge would inform the jury prior to guilty/innocent of what the penalties will be.

It's one thing to say guilty when the penalty is one year in jail it's another when the penalty is a man's life (I know it shouldn't be that way,but that is the way it is).  I also always remember the movie "12 angry men". You get 12 random people on the jury that come from all walks of life; you hope they evaluate the facts of the case but I'm learned in life that the facts are most often times justification for the emotional decision that we have already reached.

I have to assume since the jury convicted they made the correct decision-I just really don't like he said/she said. Because what it really comes down to is, "who do you believe more?"  and that's a really, really tricky question-especially since people lie.  He claims he was innocent they say he isn't someone is lying.  Now if the testimony goes like "I woke up with his hands in my pants, I screamed and started hitting him like crazy, I put a long scratch on his face, I immediately told my parents we called the police and oh by the way here is a picture we took at church on Sunday with him and a long scratch-like scab on his face" he better have a really good reason why he has a long scratch on his face or I'm believing the girl and sending the guy to jail.  If it's "I woke up with his hands in my pants and was totally silent b/c I was afraid he had a knife, I didn't tell anyone about it for 3 weeks" okay even if you have another story like that how can I convict? 

It's my opinion that individuals have to take some measure of responsibility after a crime occurs and during it if at all possible. I have to assume there was more than just his word against hers (at least I hope so) to convict a man and send him to jail for a very long time.

[Jamie123]

6 hours ago, yjacket said:

the facts are most often times justification for the emotional decision that we have already reached.

Absolutely! Who really ever does anything for the reason they claim they do it?

6 hours ago, yjacket said:

I have to assume since the jury convicted they made the correct decision

I disagree. The machinery of state punishment certainly has to proceed upon that assumption, but you don't and nor do I. You, me and all other private individuals are free to make whatever assumptions we like.

[yjacket]

3 minutes ago, Jamie123 said:

Absolutely! Who really ever does anything for the reason they claim they do it?

I disagree. The machinery of state punishment certainly has to proceed upon that assumption, but you don't and nor do I. You, me and all other private individuals are free to make whatever assumptions we like.

I agree, I just meant that in this instance (since I'm very ill-informed to the particulars of the case and do not know anything about the guy) I assume that the jury made the right decision-at least I hope so.

But you are right, plenty of convictions have been overturned (it is quite appalling on some of the DNA cases that overturned a conviction the actual details of the trail and conviction) where the jury did not make the right decision.

[Jamie123]

7 hours ago, yjacket said:

I agree, I just meant that in this instance (since I'm very ill-informed to the particulars of the case and do not know anything about the guy) I assume that the jury made the right decision-at least I hope so.

But you are right, plenty of convictions have been overturned (it is quite appalling on some of the DNA cases that overturned a conviction the actual details of the trail and conviction) where the jury did not make the right decision.

Yes I agree: a working assumption that prisons are filled by-and-large with guilty people is better than burdening ourselves with the possible innocence of every last inmate. Yet if we're going to talk about the goodness/badness of an individual I prefer not to rely on what the jury thought.

Also there's another matter: legally a decision can be "correct" even though the conclusion that is reached is later shown to be ontologically incorrect. For example, suppose several witnesses testified about somebody committing a crime: these all seemed respectable people and the jury convicts. However, new evidence later shows them to have been a criminal gang who committed the crime themselves and conspired to place the blame on an innocent stooge. The "innocent stooge" will of course be freed by the appeal court, but the judges will place no blame on the jury or the judge who instructed them for "getting it wrong"; they made the right decision at the time.

The trouble is that all jury verdicts - however flimsy the evidence they are based upon - are assumed to be "right at the time".

I remember once seeing a documentary about the investigation of Sheila Bowler, convicted of murdering her aunt "for her inheritance": the evidence throughout seemed very circumstantial, but the last few minutes showed puff-chested senior detectives boasting how the jury verdict proved them to have been right all along.

I don't think they were quite as swell-headed a couple of years later when Sheila Bowler was granted a retrial and found not guilty.

I don't know how it is in America, but here in the UK (theoretically at least) a judge is not supposed to allow a case to go before a jury if there is no grounds upon which a reasonable jury could convict. This is not the same thing as a "finding of innocence" (this does not exist in British law) but merely that there is no reasonable way of proving guilt.

This is what happened in the case of Colin Stagg, who was prosecuted for the infamous "Wimbledon Common Murder" - mostly on the basis that he was "a bit odd" and had written (at the prompting of an undercover policewoman no less) a fictional story about murdering some campers in the New Forest. The evidence was total garbage, yet judge suffered massive abuse from the press (just as this judge is suffering). And he turned out to have been right: much later DNA testing showed that well-known serial killer Robert Napper had been the real culprit, and that the police had missed numerous opportunities to discover this at the time.

The judge had been quite right - history shows that junk evidence presented the right way can sway juries to convict, which is why we need judges to have the courage to say "no". But this gives rise to another question: if juries cannot be trusted to judge easy cases (where the evidence is clearly inconclusive) how can they be trusted when the evidence is less clear?

[Just_A_Guy]

Will wonders never cease?  The Salt Lake Tribune makes sense:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5203240-155/tribune-op-ed-judges-controversial-ruling-just

[Vort]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Will wonders never cease?  The Salt Lake Tribune makes sense:

http://www.sltrib.com/opinion/5203240-155/tribune-op-ed-judges-controversial-ruling-just

Don't believe it. That horrific rag occasionally writes an op-ed with common sense just to keep everyone off-balance.