Quote:
Originally Posted by blazey
Funnily enough the jury don't just sit down and think, yes she's obviously guilty, all agreed? and that's the end of it. They have to talk about everything they have seen in court and decide what offence the person is actually guilty of. Obviously she killed the baby but they have to decide whether the evidence suggests she is deemed insane or whether the reasons were enough for them to see why she might have done it. Depression for a start is very common and could easily change the entire perspective of a case like that. It's easy enough to say it's easy to send someone down when you are just reading the newspaper but I think anyone with any sense knows that court is nothing like what the newspapers make it out to be, and it's far more complex. I think it'd be disgusting if sound minded people could sentence someone to a lifetime in prison based on their own view point instead of deliberating over the evidence with the other members of the jury in case they missed something of relevance and considering it from every angle, and even more so if capital punishment was still an option. Newspapers simply don't give enough detail to really make a decent judgement like that in my opinion.
|
You are right on this one B. This woman is on trial for her life in a legal system in which she has to be found guilty "beyond reasonable doubt." And one thing that the report does not mention is the judge's charge to the jury. And what is always implicitly "on trial" in a case like this is the defendant's, any defendant's, right to a fair and impartial hearing, however horrendous the crime he/she is charged with. And we musn't forget that it isn't over yet. She does have the right to appeal. So it is better that the jury deliberate for hours rather than minutes.