Monday, January 7, 2013 2:58:51 PM
I'm not understanding why this isn`t just put under the plain old fashioned RAPE label and why they don`t just ignore the rest of that other bullpoo. This wasn`t consensual. It was rape. Why is it being twisted?
Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:49:00 AM
E.g., if the jury on the Jean Charles de Menezes hearing had been kept fully informed of their right to ignore the Coroner's unethical directions to exonerate the police officers involved in his killing, I doubt the police officers responsible for his death would now be free. And someone as evil as Augusto Pinochet should never have been sent back to Chile from the UK, just because corrupt politicians like Tony Blair and George Bush wanted to protect him from being lawfully prosecuted for the widespread campaigns of torture and murder he conducted whilst leader of Chile.
Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:48:52 AM
With that right though should come the responsibilty of having to put forward a clear case of why you ignored the direction
I'm sorry to hear about your girlfriend. It would certainly have been informative, and would have provided some closure to all involved, to know what the jury were thinking.
In general, though, I remain in favour of the ordinary people that make up juries having the power to ignore unjust laws when they see fit, and being made fully informed about that power when they are called to service. It`s by no means perfect, but on average I`d rather that the law were applied by ordinary people than by judges that are in politicians` and the police`s pockets (as evidenced by the number of police officers and states that get away with crimes up to and including torture, murder and human rights violations)....
Saturday, January 5, 2013 7:36:26 AM
No, they're not, a woman got raped and the law that allowed him to go free should not have been upheld. Now maybe that wasn`t the question the court wasn`t suppoosed to answer but nonetheless. If a jury nullified this man`s conviction it would`ve been a mistake, but it wouldn`t justify outlawing the practice.
You`ve completely missed the point about what Jury Nullification is. It`s not just about the power to refuse to convict under an unjust law. It`s also about the power juries have to refuse to exonerate just because some arcane law says they have to. In this case, Jury Nullification could (and should) have been invoked by an informed jury to declare that the fact that the attacker wasn`t pretending to be the victim`s husband to be an irrelevance.