tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post111885082850036772..comments2024-02-21T19:17:51.003+11:00Comments on Ari on the web: Jackson Jury's a JokeAri Sharphttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06077102567908140945noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1119182561105587622005-06-19T22:02:00.000+10:002005-06-19T22:02:00.000+10:00I'm not sure yet, but I think I'm with you on the ...I'm not sure yet, but I think <A HREF="http://www.glutbusters.com/archives/2005/06/pride_and_preju.html" REL="nofollow">I'm with you</A> on the whole no jury thing. The one problem: can it all come down to just one person? jeremy jose is right on with the problems involved with that one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1119071366182733112005-06-18T15:09:00.000+10:002005-06-18T15:09:00.000+10:00You could never convict gatto on that evidence...V...You could never convict gatto on that evidence...Veniamin loved .38s and he got killed by a .38. Clearly it was his gun. Gatto is a hardass oldschool g'star and "benji" was a brutal thug who had no common sense. This guy was erratic and pulled a gun on the wrong guy...Gatto was simply defending himself. Clear as day. Jacko on the otherhand is f'ing weirdo...but was never gonna be convicted when the victim was so inconsistant with his course of events.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1118925449809270302005-06-16T22:37:00.000+10:002005-06-16T22:37:00.000+10:00The Jackson/Gatto/Corby trials were merely a 'hook...The Jackson/Gatto/Corby trials were merely a 'hook' I used to discuss the issues of juries at large. The argument I made - that juries are illequipped to deal with the complexities of evidence - is appropriate regardless of the celebrity status of the defendant.Ari Sharphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06077102567908140945noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1118903294127115542005-06-16T16:28:00.000+10:002005-06-16T16:28:00.000+10:00It's worth remembering that Judges must give reaso...It's worth remembering that Judges must give reasons, which can be scrutinised on appeal. Juries don't give any reasons, and the DPP cannot appeal from an acquittal - even if it seems (genuinely) perverse.<BR/><BR/>Many perfectly good criminal justice systems do not leave verdicts in the hands of juries, but it's what we're used to in Australia. Indonesian, Israeli, French, Swedish (etc) jurists are often alarmed by what they perceive as the arbitrariness and lack of accountability and effective review inherent within the UK/US/Australian jury system.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/><BR/>John.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1118888004691538902005-06-16T12:13:00.000+10:002005-06-16T12:13:00.000+10:00remember that juries are unique to the English com...remember that juries are unique to the English common law world. they are absent not only from European civil law systems but also from non-western cultures, several of which (China and Islam for instance) had developed quite sophisticated judicial systems prior to western influence. I think it's a big call to assert one country's monopoly on the effective delivery of justice, but that's what the debate on juries often amounts to. it slips into an 18th century mould casting the jury as a birthright of freeborn Anglo-Saxons, compared with benighted continentals writhing under inquisitorial despotism (I'd suggest this is the mindset that coloured Austalian reactions to the Corby case). Leaving aside the historical problems with this approach, it's philosophically reductionist. justice is more complex than the 'no innocent person shall be convicted' <BR/>principle, it includes e.g. factors of time, cost and social policy. <BR/>empirically, common law systems (Australia included) don't deliver substantially better justice outcomes than non-CL ones, in fact they suffer from major systemic problems that non-CL countries don't, though these derive more from the adversarial system in general rather han juries per se. <BR/><BR/>personally I don't see why in principle a panel of judges should not be a legitimate fact-finding body. obviously you can't keep rotating judges between different areas of law to avoid 'hardening' them as they need to develop some expertise in what they're doing, but <BR/>you can put in certain safeguards to ensure you don't end up with 'Diplock' courts (I'd suggest the Northern Ireland situation is quite context-specific and shouldn't be used as a general model).boy_fromOzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12354698665016613894noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7004769.post-1118874845035652032005-06-16T08:34:00.000+10:002005-06-16T08:34:00.000+10:00I presume Gatto must be convicted of at least some...I presume Gatto must be convicted of at least some pretty fucking serious weapons charges. You're not supposed to be wandering around with a pistol in your pocket in case someone tries to assassinate you.Jeremyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06192828679762836954noreply@blogger.com