Nice People Thread No. 15, a Cyber Summer

PasturesNew

ivyleaf wrote: »

.... ivy leaves are Christmassy (Thanks again for my avatar pic, ....

This time last week I had two 1930's characterful red brick piers holding up a shabby bit of fence - it was here that ivy was growing. I had hoped that it'd be possible to encourage that to grow more/better .... but that's what's all been ripped away this week.

No more ivy here.... no characterful piers ....

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

The other case was someone claiming they couldn't have consented to sex with their spouse because they were so drunk at the time that they were solidly asleep.

What was the verdict? On the one hand, the law does say it's rape if you have sex with somebody who's too drunk to know what's going on, and being married to them wouldn't change that. On the other hand, I've sat on the jury for a "he said/she said" rape case where the defence was consent, and we acquitted him. Rape defendants are just as entitled as any other kind of defendant to be found not guilty unless there's sufficient evidence to prove they're guilty, and in the case we tried, there wasn't.

PasturesNew wrote: »

Too long-winded/expensive to ensure everybody gets a "fair trial", when many cases being brought to court these days don't need a "fair trial" as they aren't going to be hung .....

Naturally none of the cases I was on the jury for were capital ones, but all three warranted custodial sentences. The bloke we convicted went down for it (ABH), and the two we acquitted would have gone down if we'd found them guilty (the aforementioned rape and a drugs offence).

silvercar

LydiaJ wrote: »

What was the verdict? On the one hand, the law does say it's rape if you have sex with somebody who's too drunk to know what's going on, and being married to them wouldn't change that. On the other hand, I've sat on the jury for a "he said/she said" rape case where the defence was consent, and we acquitted him. Rape defendants are just as entitled as any other kind of defendant to be found not guilty unless there's sufficient evidence to prove they're guilty, and in the case we tried, there wasn't.
.

Not guilty. His defence was that it hadn't happened.

Pyxis

ivyleaf wrote: »

Oh, I see



We bought a new little "pre-decorated" Christmas tree this year, as the old one looked rather sorry for itself. We needed a new topper for it as well - the tinsel star was looking very battered - so i asked DD1 if she might be able to crochet an angel tree topper for it. She's done that, and also made a Weeping Angel one for OH who is a Doctor Who fan, but she gave it a solid base so that he can't insist it goes on the tree instead of the proper one :rotfl:

That was the one Doctor Who episode that really scared me. The simulated blink by the camera and then the weeping angel was nearer, then blink, even nearer, then blink...and it was in your face with its mouth wide open for the kill. shudder
A very good script, that one. Aliens that can only move when you're not looking at them.
Statues of angels will never be the same again!

PasturesNew wrote: »

I do think a lot of time/money is wasted in the law system these days.

A JK type of "trial" could sort out a lot quite easily.

The system needs an overhaul really.

Also, I see a lot of "guilty" people plead not guilty... and I think "why?". e.g. that girl that snapped/shared that photo of the old lady in the gym changing rooms .... she DID do it. That's not in dispute. She says she didn't know how to share photos and thought it was just going to a friend - I'd say that's part of the "reason", but she was guilty of doing it - as it was done, by her, ergo she is guilty.

Too long-winded/expensive to ensure everybody gets a "fair trial", when many cases being brought to court these days don't need a "fair trial" as they aren't going to be hung .....

Need to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Ooooh! Pastures! :eek:
How would you feel if you didn't get a fair trial and as a result was fined, given a suspended sentence, or worst of all, imprisoned as a result? :eek:
I don't think that the argument of " oh but you haven't been hung!" would make you feel a lot better!


(Part deleted)

It did make me wonder how valid a jury decision is, though, as a lot of people wouldn't want to be the 'odd one out', and might well succumb to the majority view, whether they really think that or not.

I suppose it was one instance where already being an 'odd one out' stood me in good stead! :rotfl: :rotfl:

LydiaJ

silvercar wrote: »

Not guilty. His defence was that it hadn't happened.

And I imagine there was no proof that it had. Why do the CPS bring cases like that to court when it should be obvious there isn't enough evidence for a conviction??

In the case we tried, there was plenty of evidence that it had happened, and the defence was consent. Part of the problem was that her boyfriend turned up a couple of hours later and could tell that it had happened... which was when she started saying she hadn't consented to it. Maybe she hadn't, but then maybe she had. She had consented to it with the defendant in the past, and the position in which they both agreed it had happened was not one in which it would be at all easy to coerce somebody. So, not enough evidence for a safe conviction, therefore a verdict of not guilty.

X-posted with Pyxis

LydiaJ

Pyxis wrote: »

It did make me wonder how valid a jury decision is, though, as a lot of people wouldn't want to be the 'odd one out', and might well succumb to the majority view, whether they really think that or not.

I once did a Saturday session at school about applications of science, or some such. There's an episode of Yes Minister where Hacker has to decide whether or not to give the go-ahead for a new chemical plant in his constituency. The session was an hour long using a half hour programme so the lesson was 10 min of video, 10 min of discussion, repeat, repeat again. I delivered it twice one morning, to different groups of students.

In the first group, one student pretty quickly came out strongly in favour of the plant after the first 10 minute video clip - there's no evidence that the chemical is dangerous, there are lots of economic benefits, people will lose their jobs if we don't go ahead etc etc. The whole group was quickly convinced, and remained convinced throughout the rest of the session, that the chemical plant would be a good thing and the eco complainers were being unreasonable.

In the second group that same morning, one student pretty quickly came out strongly against the plant after the first 10 minute video clip - there's no evidence that the chemical is safe, children's safety is more important than corporate profits etc. The whole group was quickly convinced, and remained convinced throughout the rest of the session, that the chemical plant would be a bad thing and the industrial enthusiasts were being unreasonable.

Consensus seems to lead merely to being more sure of the rightness of the decision, not to the decision actually being a better decision. It was after I'd done that jury service, and it did make me look back at it and wonder if we'd made the right decisions.

chris_m

Pyxis wrote: »

That was the one Doctor Who episode that really scared me. The simulated blink by the camera and then the weeping angel was nearer, then blink, even nearer, then blink...and it was in your face with its mouth wide open for the kill. shudder
A very good script, that one. Aliens that can only move when you're not looking at them.
Statues of angels will never be the same again!

IMO, "Blink" was, and still is, the best episode since the 2005 relaunch, real "hide behind the sofa" stuff. Like all the better episodes/stories, it was written by Stephen Moffatt rather then Russell T Davies.

ISTR the BBC actually recommended that people with small kids record it and watch it with them during daylight hours rather than letting the kids watch it live in the evening !!!

chris_m

LydiaJ wrote: »

I once did a Saturday session at school about applications of science, or some such. There's an episode of Yes Minister where they Hacker has to decide whether or not to give the go-ahead for a new chemical plant in his constituency.

I remember that one well - like many of the Yes Minister episodes TBH, one of my favourite comedies of all time.

"Propanol is an inert compound"
"What's inert mean?"
"Well, it's not ..... irt"
"What's a compound, come to that?"
"Weeell,.... it's like compound interest, a jolly good thing to have"
:rotfl:

PasturesNew

Pyxis wrote: »

.... didn't get a fair trial ...

What I meant - and said very badly - is that everybody could still have a fair trial, but with a cutdown version of the hoo-hah and ceremony.

It's a costly system and process and there are times when there's no need for expensive hoo-hah. Yet, as the system is currently set up, the hoo-hah has to be gone through.

If a shopkeeper buzzes their panic alarm, 2 policemen turn up and the perp is caught in the shop without any doubt he was raiding the place.... it shouldn't be necessary for all the hoo-hah.

Hoo-hah was from the olden days when there was less certainty and less evidence. No CCTV, no DNA, etc.

These days, for a lot of instances, you know you've "got the right person".

If I use my phone to video me bashing a granny down the High street, then posting it on Youtube ... no hoo-hah needed. Just a sentencing.

PasturesNew

LydiaJ wrote: »

Consensus seems to lead merely to being more sure of the rightness of the decision, not to the decision actually being a better decision. It was after I'd done that jury service, and it did make me look back at it and wonder if we'd made the right decisions.

Some years ago I read an article about leadership and groups. It appears that within a group, once a loud person has spoken out, most others will simply go along with what they said.

Even if they're wrong.... because they spoke out, loudly, that was enough for the sheep group.

Unfortunately for me .... I'm the person who sticks their hand up and says "Hang on, that's not right is it ...." and people don't like things to be questioned, they don't wish to fully explore/discuss something. They've already made their mind up and they're behind Mr/s Mouthy.

Studies also demonstrated that the mouthy person is, too, usually wrong.

So people are mostly making wrong decisions because a mouthy/loud person arrogantly said their piece.



Lesson: In life you can be wrong ALL the time, so long as you're outspoken and say it first.... and are arrogant enough to be loud enough and intimidating enough that others just line up behind you.