- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 2,922
- Reaction score
- 343
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
...Because both professions specialise in lying and blindsiding.
Think about it. It doesn't matter much for the background of a defendant, or even the evidence, for a juryman when asked to decide on his guilt or innocence. The accused can look angelic or as evil as sin, but you're gonna get confused (and confused good) when both defence and prosecution battle hard with their PR skills to either demonise or romanticise the bloke in the dock.
Open-and-shut cases are mostly easy and straightforward but other more serious ones can be deep enough without m'learned friends' obscure legal technicalities, excuses for bad behaviour and logic-chopping to drag things even further into the goo. It's all about spin and winning, with justice coming lower down. That's why it's still a 'victory' for criminal scum to escape proper justice in the eyes of the smooth-tongued 'wiggies'.
Even with mass murderers or serial rapists, lawyers can't resist a bit of the old gloss, telling us they can't really help it or they're just a bit mad that's all. If the bloke defending Dennis Nilsen, and those like him, faced their own charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice when trying to warp the truth too hard, we may get more clarity in our courts.
Even though I swear by trial by jury, as it's the most open, democratic and fair method of judgment we can get, I still don't think many of us can be trusted to man a jury. Short cases anybody can do, but big cases are more likely to see juries replaced as they get bored or confused. Who can honestly say they can follow the contradicting stands of logic, unbroken in their concentration, as the two liars in wigs do what they will with the police evidence? After all, all so often, it's not about what's right but about the law.
Judges are there to help and advise but they're the only ones apart from both defence and prosecution who are trained. I couldn't be a juryman. Knowing my cynicism (and those of many others who have sat on juries) I would probably ignore most of what the professionals say on the grounds of untrustworthiness and come to my own cobbled-together, horse-sense conclusions - especially as I'd have to sit on a jury and so would be more likely to be swayed by the others.
..But hey, the approach to the lawyers works well enough when they 'upgrade' to being politicians!
Think about it. It doesn't matter much for the background of a defendant, or even the evidence, for a juryman when asked to decide on his guilt or innocence. The accused can look angelic or as evil as sin, but you're gonna get confused (and confused good) when both defence and prosecution battle hard with their PR skills to either demonise or romanticise the bloke in the dock.
Open-and-shut cases are mostly easy and straightforward but other more serious ones can be deep enough without m'learned friends' obscure legal technicalities, excuses for bad behaviour and logic-chopping to drag things even further into the goo. It's all about spin and winning, with justice coming lower down. That's why it's still a 'victory' for criminal scum to escape proper justice in the eyes of the smooth-tongued 'wiggies'.
Even with mass murderers or serial rapists, lawyers can't resist a bit of the old gloss, telling us they can't really help it or they're just a bit mad that's all. If the bloke defending Dennis Nilsen, and those like him, faced their own charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice when trying to warp the truth too hard, we may get more clarity in our courts.
Even though I swear by trial by jury, as it's the most open, democratic and fair method of judgment we can get, I still don't think many of us can be trusted to man a jury. Short cases anybody can do, but big cases are more likely to see juries replaced as they get bored or confused. Who can honestly say they can follow the contradicting stands of logic, unbroken in their concentration, as the two liars in wigs do what they will with the police evidence? After all, all so often, it's not about what's right but about the law.
Judges are there to help and advise but they're the only ones apart from both defence and prosecution who are trained. I couldn't be a juryman. Knowing my cynicism (and those of many others who have sat on juries) I would probably ignore most of what the professionals say on the grounds of untrustworthiness and come to my own cobbled-together, horse-sense conclusions - especially as I'd have to sit on a jury and so would be more likely to be swayed by the others.
..But hey, the approach to the lawyers works well enough when they 'upgrade' to being politicians!
Last edited: