Quote:
Originally Posted by Balbus
Although we have not heard the evidence, most of us probably think that the jury got it wrong. Is it time we looked at the jury system again? Has it outlived its usefulness? It is sometimes said, unkindly, that you are no longer judged by your peers, but by 12 people too stupid to get out of jury service. (Apologies to those who have done their duty, and perhaps enjoyed the experience.) Should the system perhaps be replaced by a judge sitting with 2 lay assessors, as in South Africa (although they reached the wrong verdict in the Pretorius case)? Such a system would be more efficient. quicker, and less expensive.
|
From what I have read, I don't think the jury got it wrong. And if an appeal hasn't yet been lodged, either by the Crown or the defense, the jury must have done what a jury is supposed to do: weigh the evidence, follow the charge of the judge, and reach a verdict. The 20 year sentence seems appropriate, by the way.
And I have a question: does an accused have the right to elect trial by jury, or trial by judge alone? Here's a very recent case from over here in the colonies ... a case in which either a guilty or innocent verdict would cause massive amounts of feces to his the swiftly rotating object ... a case in which the accused elected trial by judge alone.
Jian Ghomeshi found not guilty on choking and all sex assault charges - Toronto - CBC News
By the way, what is your take on this one ... I would like the other side of the pond view
