Blue Moon
Talisman
Posts: 14,829
Likes: 5,193
|
Post by Blue Moon on Dec 28, 2013 17:32:42 GMT
Genuinely wanted a discussion with my post up there.
|
|
|
Post by Germany's Top Scorer on Dec 29, 2013 12:30:21 GMT
Reading back over the judge's remarks, (this is a more general remark so don't take it just into account with this case) is it fair that someone can be judged based on stuff they do in their private life, none of which is illegal? Referring to the pissing the face etc in this context. Just been doing a lot of contempt of court stuff at uni, and though obviously it doesn't sound great, it wouldn't necessarily mean someone is guilty. Reminds me of the Joanna Yeates murder, the guy who did it had loads of violent pornography found in his house, but the jury wasn't told because the judge believed it had nothing to do with the case. Not sure what way I fall on this, once you've released that kind of information it paints the suspect in a really bad light regardless of evidence. istr that they can use that basis when it comes to sentencing, but not deciding the guilt for crimes. Jury doesn't need to know it as the decision should be based on evidence and testimony etc, and that can cause a bias when there is insufficient evidence to actually prove guilt, but that information could lead the jury to believe it happened more likely than not. It can help the judge decide on sentence as it could show whether they're likely to reoffend, whether they'd be remorseful of their crime, the severity of what they did/potential severity had they not been caught. But the jury shouldn't be privy to that information, the reason some court cases (ie Michael Jackson, OJ Simpson - both American but the same sort of thing) can take a while to set a date is that they would have to find people who either haven't heard of them or would be unlikely to allow their opinion of them to cloud their judgement. Which could be pretty tough to do in such cases as Michael Jackson, but Ian Watkins, not so much.
|
|