All about "beyond reasonable doubt".Amidst all this covid stuff, this grub has won his appeal here in Oz this morning and will walk free.
I'm gobsmacked. :(
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-04...t-appeal-child-sex-abuse-convictions/12048726
It's a strange one.For better or worse, a decision of a jury would never get overturned like that over here.
Not based in what I read, no. As you say, it seems counter-intuitive. Our system is predicated on the infallibility of juries, through the prism of the requisite standard of proof; although if truth be told, that predication is clearly a lie. Juries are bound to make mistakes from time to time - to suggest otherwise is simply absurd.It's a strange one.
To be found guilty by a jury, and then for judges to say they made the wrong decision as they only relied on one witnesses testimony, is a pure and simple overrule that makes a mockery of trial by jury. It's not like they came up with new or previously withheld evidence?
Wouldn't disagree with that, with one possible exception. The older I get, and the more people I come across, I'm not sure juries are the 'least worst' option to be honest. Some people simply do not have the faculties to comprehend a lot of the evidence in a case, especially complex cases. I guess it keeps the general public on side to a degree, as we have involvement in the process, but I doubt it increases the 'accuracy' of convictions.Not based in what I read, no. As you say, it seems counter-intuitive. Our system is predicated on the infallibility of juries, through the prism of the requisite standard of proof; although if truth be told, that predication is clearly a lie. Juries are bound to make mistakes from time to time - to suggest otherwise is simply absurd.
My personal view is that more mistakes (both ways) occur in trials of historic sexual abuse than any other. This is because the only meaningful evidence is frequently the oral testimony of the accuser and the accused, which is usually evaluated simply on their respective performances - which some people are simply better at than others, irrespective of whether they are telling the truth or not.
it’s a difficult one: I think juries’ instincts are usually right; I believe it’s the ‘least worst’ system available; and of course we should prosecute people accused of historical sexual offences (with certain robust caveats) - but the notion that juries never get things wrong, even with all the available evidence being before them, doesn’t stand up to any objective scrutiny, or the lessons of history.
I think the problem with any alternative system is that it would inevitably involve the judiciary in the decision making process. Circuit judges are generally a cynical, case-hardened group who’ve heard and seen it all before. It would almost certainly lead to a higher conviction rate. Most circuit judges are prosecution minded these days, that’s for sure. This contention is supported by the conviction rate in the magistrates’ court (either via district judge or lay bench) which is considerably higher than the crown court and in Japan, where jury trials aren’t part of the system, where I think the conviction rate is over 98%Wouldn't disagree with that, with one possible exception. The older I get, and the more people I come across, I'm not sure juries are the 'least worst' option to be honest. Some people simply do not have the faculties to comprehend a lot of the evidence in a case, especially complex cases. I guess it keeps the general public on side to a degree, as we have involvement in the process, but I doubt it increases the 'accuracy' of convictions.
This contention is supported by the conviction rate in the magistrates’ court