I bet it was interesting in this jury room !

[gasbanni]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...ections-by-judge-in-speeding-points-case.html


I bet there was a lot of pedantic verbosity in this jury room !


And finally question 10 !!!!
Q10. "Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?





I bet some of them were tearing their hair out !!!!!!

 

[JBR]

'Twelve good men (and women these days) and true'. Wasn't that the definition of a jury? There's no mention of a minimum level of intelligence, is there?

 

[big-all]

'Twelve good men (and women these days) and true'. Wasn't that the definition of a jury? There's no mention of a minimum level of intelligence, is there?

intelligence is very subjective
social skills and experiences is also subjective but important
to be honest intelligence is a bad point to assume the level you need to be at to be a good juror
intelligence is often a bad point for people to assume they are a good juror as it often means they think there contribution is more valid than others
where as more worldly and down to earth is far more relevant than just intelligent

 

[chapeau]

Well I was always told there is no such thing as a stupid question and I don't see what all the fuss is about. Asking question is by far a better course of action than not asking them, their decision had the potential of sending somebody to prison.

The law needs to remember that some people are might not know the difference between inference and speculation and need to ask. The judge will know this because, well, he's a judge. Ask the judge to plaster a wall and he wouldn't have a friggin clue, yet somebody who didn't have a degree in English would be able to do it perfectly.

Good for the jury for trying to understand, and bad for another judge with his head up his ass I would say.

 

[mdf290]

It doesn't sound like there was a lack of intelligence in the Jury just a complete lack of common sense.
People too used to dealing with HR issues and diversity training and olicy making within the public sector sidetracked the issue with the whole 'noone is ever guilty' 'society is to blame' claptrap.

She was GUILTY of perverting the course of justice. The only question is HOW guilty.

Her husband put her in an akward position and did pressure her to sign using guilt about his job prospects but not having full details of the actual events as far as I am aware he did not THREATEN her either physically or verbally or suggest she would be penalised in any way. She is obviously her own woman only when it suits her.
In my opinion not only should she be found guilty of the original offence but perjury should be thrown in too.

There are women all over the country who ARE Coerced into actions they have to do under threat of violence but this lady is NOT one of them in my humble opinion of course.

 

[JBR]

Yes. Perhaps I should have used the term 'common sense' rather than 'intelligence'. I did not mean to imply academic intelligence, but simply the ability to understand simple instructions such as those the judge gave them.

Whether right or wrong, the judge's dismissing the jury and a different one having to be appointed must have cost us (the good old taxpayer) a lot of money.

They should just have found the ugly old cow (and I realise that appearance should have no bearing on the outcome - just a personal opinion!) guilty!

 

[ajstoneservices]

We shouldn't expect anything different today with most Londoner's having English as a second language.

 

[JohnD]

I've been a juror on several occasions, and I was particularly struck by:

Q5. Can a juror come to a verdict based on a reason that was not presented in court and has no facts or evidence to support it?

I saw something similar when a juror 1 said "he's a motor mechanic, motor mechanics are all crooks, so I reckon he did it" and juror 2 said "my brother's a motor mechanic, he's a great bloke, so I reckon he's innocent"

It might be that one or more of the jurors had a prejudice, or read something on a website or in a newspaper, and is basing their decision on that, rather than on evidence presented and tested in court.

This can be very irritating for the other jurors, so I can imagine that they put this question to the judge in an attempt to persuade the recalcitrant juror not to be so silly.

IME most jurors are not so stupid, and if 10 out of 12 of them are doing their job properly, they can reach a decision.

 

[jeds]

My guess is most of the men on the jury would convict her (on account of her guilt) but most of the women would not because Huhne is a cheating git.

 

[JBR]

Sadly, I've never been called to jury service. I'm sure I'd be quite unbiased.

"Guilty!"

 

[Space cat]

Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

I don't know whether anybody's told you this but, in this country at least, the rule of law takes priority over the word of God - or any other supernatural entity she might try to call as a witness.

It might be that one or more of the jurors had a prejudice --

That's always been a problem - but isn't that why we have twelve of them? Better a few biased jurors than one biased judge.

-- but most of the women would not because Huhne is a cheating git

Ah yes! "Hell hath no fury" and all that. Whether he cheated or not is a different question - and not, fortunately, one for our criminal justice system. But will the jurors remember that?

 

[JBR]

I don't know whether anybody's told you this but, in this country at least, the rule of law takes priority over the word of God...

Until sharia law becomes universal!

 

[gasbanni]

Would religious conviction be a good enough reason for a wife feeling she had no choice i.e. she promised to obey her husband in her wedding vows, he ordered her to do something and she felt she had to obey?

I don't know whether anybody's told you this but, in this country at least, the rule of law takes priority over the word of God - or any other supernatural entity she might try to call as a witness.

You should have been with the jury you plonker I didn't write that it was a quote from the article !

 

[Space cat]

I didn't write that it was a quote from the article !

Oops, oops and thrice oops!

You're quite right. I guess it was just too good a comedy opportunity to turn down.