Post by Dave on Sept 13, 2009 12:52:11 GMT
I am mindful that we have a member on here who works in this field and this post is not meant as an attack in any way, but does ask a few important questions about how the system has seemed to work from my own limited experiences and I'm just interested to know others views on this subject.
It is so clear how easy it is to paint any picture you want, by only presenting just the facts that will allow you to do that, it will mean that some facts will be left out as if they were used, a more truer picture would be seen.
After I did jury service at Exeter Crown Court when I was only about 20 odd years old, I felt so strongly afterward that the whole trial system was wrong and that the case I was on came down in the end to who out of the two barristers could tell their story the best.
There were other things that got me to question the whole system; one clearly was how any defence layer concealed any facts that would harm his client’s case. Now I know I will get told that he gets paid to try and get his client off, but in my world if you are guilty then you should have to face the consequences.
I was to learn much later how as long as you don’t admit anything to a lawyer who represented you, then he would defend you even if he knew you were guilty and that is something I do have a problem with.
I learned so much more about the defendant in the case I did in the paper after the trail, then I did in it. Yes I know why I could not know his past history, in fear of those on a jury making their minds up based on that history and not the facts presented before then in the case they were asked to judge.
But there were details that did appear in the paper that never were presented in court, while in the case I was on it did not matter as such, because it was never the case he was not guilty and was only seeking to get off on a technicality. My vote was an easy one, he was guilty, he did commit the crime and I cared not if the policeman had his helmet on or not, or if the arrest followed every single guide line 100%. The bottom line could only be, did he do it and the answer was yes he did.
My one and only dealing with a layer was in 1990, faced with having to put my five year old daughter to prove the reasons I had to end my marriage, when the other party would not deny it, but was not prepared to admit it, I had no choice but to drop my petition.
What made me realise how things were so flawed was the ridiculous allegations made against me afterward, one lawyer clearly not concerned if what he was being told was true or not and mine telling me as long as I did not tell him any one of then were true, then he could defend me on them.
The thing was none were true and were made knowing how I feel strongly about what is right and what is wrong and would defend them, the sorry part was they were only made by a person who would simply not let go, would not face up to the fact everything was over.
Back to the court and 12 people off the street are being asked to make their minds up and decide a persons fete, with difficult and often legal arguments that go right over their head and as I said not always getting the full facts of the case.
The question here is, is there a better way? A way that justice really can be done and those who are guilty get what they deserve.
It is so clear how easy it is to paint any picture you want, by only presenting just the facts that will allow you to do that, it will mean that some facts will be left out as if they were used, a more truer picture would be seen.
After I did jury service at Exeter Crown Court when I was only about 20 odd years old, I felt so strongly afterward that the whole trial system was wrong and that the case I was on came down in the end to who out of the two barristers could tell their story the best.
There were other things that got me to question the whole system; one clearly was how any defence layer concealed any facts that would harm his client’s case. Now I know I will get told that he gets paid to try and get his client off, but in my world if you are guilty then you should have to face the consequences.
I was to learn much later how as long as you don’t admit anything to a lawyer who represented you, then he would defend you even if he knew you were guilty and that is something I do have a problem with.
I learned so much more about the defendant in the case I did in the paper after the trail, then I did in it. Yes I know why I could not know his past history, in fear of those on a jury making their minds up based on that history and not the facts presented before then in the case they were asked to judge.
But there were details that did appear in the paper that never were presented in court, while in the case I was on it did not matter as such, because it was never the case he was not guilty and was only seeking to get off on a technicality. My vote was an easy one, he was guilty, he did commit the crime and I cared not if the policeman had his helmet on or not, or if the arrest followed every single guide line 100%. The bottom line could only be, did he do it and the answer was yes he did.
My one and only dealing with a layer was in 1990, faced with having to put my five year old daughter to prove the reasons I had to end my marriage, when the other party would not deny it, but was not prepared to admit it, I had no choice but to drop my petition.
What made me realise how things were so flawed was the ridiculous allegations made against me afterward, one lawyer clearly not concerned if what he was being told was true or not and mine telling me as long as I did not tell him any one of then were true, then he could defend me on them.
The thing was none were true and were made knowing how I feel strongly about what is right and what is wrong and would defend them, the sorry part was they were only made by a person who would simply not let go, would not face up to the fact everything was over.
Back to the court and 12 people off the street are being asked to make their minds up and decide a persons fete, with difficult and often legal arguments that go right over their head and as I said not always getting the full facts of the case.
The question here is, is there a better way? A way that justice really can be done and those who are guilty get what they deserve.
So what are you asking for Dave? It is a basic principal of our country that we have the right to be judged by a jury of our peers and that we are presumed innocent of any charge brought against us unless proved guilty.
) and were set out with justice for the accused in mind rather than for the victim.