Forum menu
If recognising some people are intellectually challenged and really don't understand what they are swearing to do/not do makes me an intellectual snob then I'm an intellectual snob.
Having sat through court preceedings in two different countires in a professional context I can assure you some people can have something explained to them in three different ways and still come out with something that says they haven't understood a woord of what was being explained. People have different reactions to stressful situations and a humble poorly-educated member of the public does not always behave rationally in the face of that stress.
We all went to school didn't we? So we have all been confronted with the variety of reations to school rules (I know some have you have been privately educated and never been confronted with the under class but you get the idea). Some kids are too thick to keep their mouths shut in school and I'm sure that if they leave school without learning whe not to gossip they aren't going to learn later.
she's been given a jail term for being thick. What do expect if you get thick amateurs to work in a highly complicated system where they are confronted with intelligent and manipulating professionals.
She was smart enough to understand the system enough to know it was wrong. Her role in the proceedings wasn't highly complicated. She wasn't manipulated by intelligent professionals.
I certainly don't share konabunny's faith of honesty and honour from within the legal system
The solicitors don't have to be honest or honourable in order to not hide the fact there had been contact between their client and the juror. They just have to be scared enough of losing their jobs to not bother covering it up. Considering the contact happening alone would be enough to put a big spanner in the works of the trial (which would be good for their client) and the client doesn't seem like a master criminal who can keep his trap shut (which would be bad for them), there doesn't seem to be any incentive for them to keep it a secret.
"intelligent and manipulating professionals"
eh how was she manipulated ?she was told up to twice a day not to do something. she having been told not to do it by a very scary professional went on the Internet and contacted the defendant and had a clearly improper exchange.
She has now received a relatively harsh sanction for an incredibly unwise crime that she chose to commit. That crime cost the public a huge amount of money and may have resulted in serious criminals walking free.
"I certainly don't share konabunny's faith of honesty and honour from within the legal system"
Do you have a rational basis for your lack of faith?
(and also - the defence gets paid regardless of what happens to the defendant - why would they risk their livelihood for the sake of some oik on Facebook?)
on second thought, I said her sentence was adequate but I actually don't think it is.
Everyone has been drawing attention to the fact that her actions brought down a £6m case which the tax payer funded and now she is being sent to Hotel HMP at our expense.
I think she should be made to do 8 months community service to repay back some of the money she caused to be wasted on her foolish actions. She does have kids after all and they are now without a mother for the duration of her sentence (which is likely to be reduced as it always is in these high profile cases)
She got manipulated into jail by people that used her as a scapegoat for a system that has huge failings. No-one seems to be asking if we should put justice in the hands of people that simply don't have the intelligence to function in a sytem that demands rigour some are incapable of.
No, she went on facebook and sent messages to someone she shouldn't have. Nothing more to it. Claiming that someone doesn't have the intelligence to understand "have no contact" is a bit daft, particularly when she herself said (in one of the messages) that she could get into trouble for doing it!
As I understand it, she initiated the contact so "manipulation" is pretty far of the mark.
What are your views on eugenics?
I thought Dave Stewart was underrated.
Edukator = Oxymoron ....discuss
To elaborate, consider theintellectual bagage the various actors in a court case carry in with them. Pretty much everyone in the building will have a string of A-levels, dgrees and professional qualifications to prove they understand thesytem, their roles, obligations and responsibilities, except the jurors. When one of them proves to be inadequate then should we punish them or take responsibility for putting them in a situation where they were out of their depth.
If you take qualified swimming instructor and throw him/her into the sea a mile offshore then there's every chance (s)he'll swim back. Take 12 random members of the public and how many will need rescuing however many times you yell "you swore you could swim when we made you swear it". Should those that need rescuing be jailed? Jury service is obligatory so there's no protesting you can't swim before they throw you in the water.
where they were out of their depth
She wasn't. She knew she wasn't allowed to do it but she still did.
LOL
Potential Juror "I can't do jury service"
Judge "and why not?"
Potential juror "to be honest, I'm a f***ing moron"
😀
In typical STW fashion some of you are (mis)quoting me and inventing your own context. I have never said she was manipulated into posting on Facebook. My "manipulating" comment was a reference to role of legal professionals (defence and prosection) which is most definitely to manipulate juries to give the verdict they want.
But she still evidently wasn't out of her depth...
"She got manipulated into jail by people that used her as a scapegoat for a system that has huge failings. No-one seems to be asking if we should put justice in the hands of people that simply don't have the intelligence to function in a system that demands rigour some are incapable of."
I'm sorry this makes no sense who manipulated her ?
No one put justice in her sole hands she was one of twelve jurors who have the guilt or innocence of the defendant entrusted to them .
It is vital for our system that a wide cross section of society appear on the jury panel who better to decide; what is dishonest by the standards of ordinary decent people; what is the reasonable amount of force to be used in particular circumstances ; or weather they believe one witness or another, than twelve ordinary people.
Those who are perhaps not as well educated may well still have strong and persuasive views that will contribute to a fair trial .
Most innocent people when given a free choice elect jury trial most lawyers will tell you that juries are very hard to fool if the client is clearly guilty . It is a bit arrogant to assume that ordinary people or even the lower orders of ordinary people " simply don't have the intelligence " to decide the factual issues in a criminal trial.
This individual simply lacked the integrity to live up to her oath, any system involving human judgement runs up against that risk no matter how you select the decision maker.
Edukator - I can see where you're coming from here, but aren't juries stuffed with thicko's because anyone with half a brain has got far more important stuff to be doing, so worms their way out it?
All that's left are the people who look on it as a real life cross between Jeremy Kyle and Crimewatch, and might be a bit more interesting than Deal or No Deal?
Maybe we need to address that issue
I don't think its a lenient sentence and its good that its being highlighted and exampled in the news as a message to other people.
Reading the messages to me indicates a understanding on her part that her course of action is one which is not allowed, yet she has consciously chosen to carry on that course of conduct.
and thats where the difference is for me.
Ok, if a person is thick/idiot/whatever and accidently talks about it .. perhaps I could understand that happened
however, she hasn't. its a knowingly chosen course of conduct. deserves what she gets.
She quite clearly knew what she was doing from the outset, it was drummed into her by the Judge including being told "not to do their own research on the internet". Looking at excerpts of the conversation she knew it was wrong but such an idiot to continue. What she thought she was going to get out of it I have no idea? As previously mentioned she caused the original trial at great expense to fall apart. She's not some 18 year old school kid who is thick?
Plus she this will be the first time this has happened and it's come to light, out of a 2 year sentence I think 8 months is pretty lenient. She'll be out in 4 months anyway. Oh and it's all good and well apologising after the incident hoping it will get you a lesser sentence! "Oh Judge I know I burgled someones house but I'm sorry" Judge: okay I was going to give you 2 years but I'll just give you 6 months instead as you're sorry!!
As someone unfamiliar with the legal system she would have been unaware of the gravity of her actions. I'm sure that if the judge had said "if you talk to anyone you will definitley be going to jail for 8 months, you are on trial here as well as the baddies, if you can't keep your big mouth shut then go home now" she'd have left.
The role of legal professionals is to put the crown's or defendant's case fairly before the jury and explain the relevant law in terms the jury can understand . They also have a duty to test the opposing case . Another professional called a judge overseas that process and ensures that both side perform that duty . The Advocates for very good reason avoid crossing the mark if they distorted the case wrongly manipulated the jury or did anything else that could lead to a mistrial they may find themselves personally liable for the wasted costs.
Yes the Advocate has to be persuasive but you have a really low opinion of your fellow man if you don't think any twelve can see through someone trying to manipulate them .
Educator I'm sorry but your last post is really lame are you really saying that even a real idiot would not understand that you should not talk to a defendant when you are on their jury . If she is that dumb how did she find her way to court on a morning .
Edukator, nope I don't think she would be unaware of her actions, it will have been drilled into her. How anyone can do and "find" the defendant on FB clearly shows there intention, this wasn't a chance encounter that got out of hand this was a deliberate, calculating indivudal who is a complete moron and deserved what she got.
"a complete moron and deserved what she got"
Once again a quote to suport my view she was jailed for being thick. Only a complete moron would do what she did and if she's a complete moron then she's a victim of a system which demands intelligence or jails you.
Doing stupid things (being a moron) doesn't meant that you can't justifiably be jailed/punished.
Besides, clever people often do moronic things.
The courts have always taken a very dim view of this sort of thing... and quite rightly. Basic tenant of our justice system is to see that it is done transparently and without favour. As soon as that goes by the way-side then it’s a house of cards. No excuses I’m afraid and I don’t subscribe to the notion that she was ignorant of her duties and responsibilities – not good enough. It would have been impressed upon her at many intervals during the proceedings that she must not discuss the case. The arrant contempt she has shown was wilful disobedience worthy of a turn in the poky.
But people shouldn't be put into situations they are not intelligent enough to deal with. Just as you shouln't throw a non-swimmer into a swimming pool.
When I read people their rights there was the line about not having to say anything unless they wished to do so but anything they did say would be... . The intellegent ones shut up at that point and made a statement later after consulting a lawyer. I was always amazed at how many talked my head off to the point I had trouble remembering all the self-incriminating quotes.
Edukator I think we get your point that the less able and less bright people cannot understand complex things as well as bright and able people. However the instruction in this case is pretty simple and straight forward - dont talk to anyone about this trial would anyone be as daft as think that this did not include those on trial?. We did not ask her to split the atom or explain gravity and then jail her because she could not.
She had the intelligence to use a computer and FB so she understood the instruction. A fact not demonstrated by her own admission that she would get into trouble. The fact she did not know how much trouble is no defence. Stupidity alone did not get her convicted it was her poor judgement.
Junkyard, would you employ someone with the level of English displayed on Facebook to do anything affecting the liberty and future of other people? I wouldn't and I think the jury system should be selective enough to eliminate such people from juries because of the harm they could cause to the accused, society or indeed themselves as this case demonstrates.
If the system is perverse enough to use such people then the system should take the rap. If a company employs an unqualified plumber who then mistakes a gas pipe for a water pipe and blows up a building who is responsible? The company and in particular the person that employed the unqualified the plumber. If the plumber survives he/she is also considered a victim.
Junkyard, would you employ someone with the level of English displayed on Facebook to do anything affecting the liberty and future of other people?
do you understand how random selection eliminates bias? Juries are not employed they are randomally chosen precisely to eliminat bias. I suspect if you give me the CV and all details I could give a reason why anyone should not serve on a jury not just someone stupid. You could equally well argue an intelligent lefty bleeding heart liberal like myself is more likely to forgive someone so I should not serve due to my bias. Where exactly do we draw the line and who makes this judgement?
The system is not at fault her own comments show she knew it was wrong I dont see how you can overlook like this fact tbh as it defeats your whole argument.
To be fair I can see your point of view but it strikes me as some sort of intellectual eugencis/selection programme and i am not at all comfortable with it. I dont think it would be any better or fairer than random tbh.
some people are foolish, some people are just plain stupid and some are very clever and do certain things for a reason.
she isn't stupid (as ambiguous that term is, I imply it to mean utterly retarded),she was just foolish, otherwise she would not have been selected. She had a duty as juror to not talk to any party regarding the case, she knew this, she didn't obide by that fundamental rule of being a juror and as a result she was in contempt of court and was sentenced accordingly.
The whole thing makes you wonder if there shouldnt be a minimum IQ requirement for Jury Dury..
(Stands back to get flamed)
If you have bias in a population then a random selection will simply reflect the bias. Taking this thread as an example, a random selection would find the lady guilty as because she is a "moron" and did something stupid when doing soemthing she had been made to do despite being unqualified to do it. She must be vindictively punished because the majority on this forum are into a vindictive justice system based on revenge and detereance rather than reconciliation, reeducation and reintegration.
I really think that you should have to take a "jury test" to be a juror in the same way as you take a driving test before being able to drive a car on your own. The test would include questions on a variety of social, legal and moral issues. A sort of "BAC philo" with a legal slant.
Perhaps I should remind people that:
"England and Wales have the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe - 143 people per 100,000."
I'm a bit baffled as to why people think she is a moron, she did a moronic thing but she clearly knew what she was doing (including the consequences) all the way through. Including finding the bloke on facebook.
I also think the sentence was to lenient as she clearly states that she was trying to manipulate the jury on the defendants behalf.
"a complete moron and deserved what she got"Once again a quote to suport my view she was jailed for being thick. Only a complete moron would do what she did and if she's a complete moron then she's a victim of a system which demands intelligence or jails you.
If you was as clever as you fink you is, you might understand things a bit better and not be quite as ignorant as you are.
No, no, don't start giving it all the biggun like you're proper intelligent and that because a truly intelligent person wouldn't come out with the ignorant bigoted unenlightened crap that you have.
Are you a teacher? I pity the pupils who have to suffer your attempts to educate them.
Shut up now I've got things to do so I don't want to be disturbed. Thanks.
If you have bias in a population then a random selection will simply reflect the bias.
Well yes if a bias exists but I would still be judged by peers. Your method creates a bias [ that does not exist in society] and makes me judged by my more intelligent peers. Why not thick juries for thick criminals? bright ones for bright folk? Can I have an all male white one [ I was going to say MTBer as well but perhaps not ] etc.
Taking this thread as an example, a random selection would find the lady guilty as because she is a "moron" and did something stupid when doing soemthing she had been made to do despite being unqualified to do it. She must be vindictively punished because the majority on this forum are into a vindictive justice system based on revenge and detereance rather than reconciliation, reeducation and reintegration.
Nope you lost me a bit there unqualified ? What do you mean she is over 18 she lives here she qualifies. Vidictivaley punished ? Have we killed her, taken all her goods it may be harsh but not vindicative IMHO. Reeducaton remember she is thick we cant apparently.
I think she was found guilty. Oddly it was not by a jury of her peers which may have included thick people but some bright judges who would pass your law/philosphy exam. Surely you are delighted with the outcome? having seen justice in action?
I really think that you should have to take a "jury test" to be a juror in the same way as you take a driving test before being able to drive a car on your own. The test would include questions on a variety of social, legal and moral issues. A sort of "BAC philo" with a legal slant.
Well i can see the merits in much the same way as I can see the merits in doing this for voting or for selective breeding humans and sterlising some. It is a large can of worms and if you think it wont allow the state an ability to "select" folk with the attributes they want you are very much mistaken. Lesser of two evils if you will.
"England and Wales have the highest per capita prison population in Western Europe - 143 people per 100,000."
What is your point here in relation to this case?
Aktually Edukator, that's really quite rude of me. No need for that really.
I owe you an apology. I'm sorry.
Well, if nothing else this has taught me to keep my nose clean. The thought that my fate if found in the box might be in the hands of someone capable of generating the drivel on page one frightens the living bejesus out of me!
No worries Elfin, I no longer teach. 8)
My point, Junkyard, is that throwing people in prison for things such a gossiping on Facebook does not make Britain a safer place to live. I don't feel any more threatened when walking along a street in Britain than anywhere else in Europe and looking at crime statistics it's not bad in terms of burglary, robbery or violent crime in general. And yet more people are deprived of their freedom by the legal system. Why? Because it's a system based on revenge and intimidation IMO. Old Testament stuff.
Some people do need locking up because they are a threat to society but I think there are better ways of dealing with the vast majority of offenders who need help changing their ways rather than time in a crime academy (prison).
She hasn't gone to prison for gossiping on Facebook, she's gone to prison for contempt of court. I think that needs to be taken fairly seriously.
gossiping on Facebook does not make Britain a safer place to live
The reason she got chucked in the jug was becasue she caused a drugs trial to get abandoned. There is a high liklihood therefore that the defendants who do not appear to be your run of the mill street criminals, but somthing slightly higher up the evolutionary scale are therefore free to continue to do whatever it is they do. So I'd say theres a very direct link between her actions and the Britain being a less safe place to live.
You can dig up tenuous arguments as long as you like, but the facts remain the facts, she knowingly broke the law, and in so doing was well aware of the consequences. She is now suffering those consequences. No sympathy and I hope that through her actions and subsequent punishment others will receive some understanding of the link between rights and responsibility.
So we're back to making an example, and detering others rather than making the "punishment" fit the crime.
Following your argument to its logical conclusion, she should have been let off without any punishment at all on the basis that the chance of her re-offending was extremely low.
gossiping on Facebook does not make Britain a safer place to live.
I think she was convicted of something else 🙄 If you could explain to me how jury members talking to defendants secretly during trials makes the world a safer place I am happy to hear.
the convicted drug dealer is now appealing claiming the trial was unfair due to this breach and may get released due to her actions. I assume you think this makes the world a safer place eh.
You may be correct [ ie I generally agree] regarding our justice system being poor and draconian in general.
i don't understand why the case collapsed because of this. Yes, its a mis-trial, but why not just re-try the defendant? I can't see any reason why this wouldn't be possible? Surely the juror isn't going to know anything, other than the deliberations of *that* jury (which wouldn't be relevant in a re-trial) that the defendant doesnt?
So we're back to making an example, and detering others rather than making the "punishment" fit the crime.
Deterrence, punishment and sending messages to the public have always been among the purposes of sentencing. Rehabilitation is not the sole purpose of sentencing.