A problem with this is that juries also have a tendency to convict based upon emotional responses (eg "gut" feelings) about a defendant, etc which can very much count against a defendant. Too many miscarriages of justice has arisen because of failure to properly follow the rules on (secondary) disclosure or because juries for some reason were prejudiced against a class of defendant. There has been a lot of publicity recently about there being insufficient convictions in rape trials which could have subconsciously influenced the jury. There is also substantial evidence that recovered memories are problematic in this situation. No conviction should ever be made solely upon such evidence, nor indeed solely upon forensic evidence. In this case I should be interested to learn the facts of the case in some depth before drawing any definitive conclusions about the veracity of the jury's verdict. The information supplied by the BBC however suggests a serious miscarriage of justice may have arisen.rosinacarley said:Whilst not commenting on this particular case may I remind you all of a few things
1. The standard of proof in criminal matters is beyond reasonable doubt.
2. The Court in Court Martials/jury in civvy trials is unlikely to convict unless they are very sure. You can see that this is an issue because the govt are trying to reduce the ability to have a trial by jury. The govt does not like juries precisely because they do not convict.
3. Leave it at that, because you have not heard the proceedings, and therefore your only information is from the media which delights in distorting matters.
|Thread starter||Similar threads||Forum||Replies||Date|
|Press release: Funding boost for victims of rape and sexual abuse||MoD News||0|
|Press release: Ex-West Yorkshire police officer has rape sentence increased||MoD News||0|
|Press release: Government increases funding for rape and sexual abuse victims||MoD News||0|