First let me say that I agree that our legal system is not perfect and needs all
the checks and balances it can get...
Second, I am sympathetic to the feelings of the victims of horrendous crime and
understand how a decision for a re-trial will be really difficult for all those involved..
However my confusion comes from the following logic
Either the man accused committed the crime or he didn't
The best discernment we can use for determining whether or not he did commit the crime
(at the moment) is the legal system under a non prejudiced judge and a non prejudiced
jury.
Whilst it is true that the jury found the accused guilty, a subsequent appeal found that
the jury MAY have been prejudiced.
In a system that talks about reasonable doubt and innocent until guilty - I would have
thought that if a jury was prejudiced then this decision was reasonable and a retrial,
though extremely painful and difficult, nevertheless just.
However, my confusion is related to whether
a) in a media saturated world it is ever possible to have a 'non prejudiced jury'. (and
I mean a group of people who have never even heard of the events or participants).
b) is a completely ignorant jury necessary?
c) if no - then how influential is the power of the mass media?
d) can justice ever be done when the mass media has so much power?
Sheehan's article painted the judges as completely unreasonable - which I think
must be exaggeration. But were they a little wrong? or is our system wrong? or...
Niall
PS - I am not here arguing for limiting journalistic research and scope - however I think there
needs to be an extremely tight set of guidelines about how the media will report, especially
when it comes to legal matters. Perhaps the judges in this case were unwise, perhaps not. But if
there was less sensationalism the effects on everyone, especially victims, might be less...
Clare Pascoe Henderson wrote:
Hi Niall
Niall McKay wrote:
but the bottom line is really that a) a jury believed Sheikh guilty; and - no doubt, however the appeals process found that the
jury may have been influenced, which *could* mean that
the jury was compromised
Yes, sure. But to a victim, it's still validation, even when it gets called into question.
b) he got off on a point of law - actually he got a re-trial which I am told is a very
different thing
Yes, that's true, and I didn't realise it was just that a separate trial had been ordered until I read Ackland's piece. Both things suggest that Wood and Mason thought the jury had been influenced. Maybe they were right, maybe they were wrong. But this is where the law gets subjective (both ways, potentially), and Sheehan's reaction ignores that possibility entirely. Yet it happens. Just think of Lindy Chamberlain.
nevertheless I am still confused
About why Mason and Wood decided the way they did? Or about something else?
Clare *************************************************** Clare Pascoe Henderson http://www.clergyabuseaustralia.org Clergy Sexual Abuse in Australia Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***************************************************
--
Niall McKay
Bathurst City Uniting Church
140 William Street Bathurst
NSW 2795
Office Phone: 02 63321197
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Prophetic words
"we are against this war, Mr. Bush. Shame on you, Mr. Bush, shame on you. And, whenever you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, your time is up"
Michael Moore
------------------------------------------------------ - You are subscribed to the mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] - To unsubscribe, email [EMAIL PROTECTED] and put in the message body 'unsubscribe insights-l' (ell, not one (1)) See: http://nsw.uca.org.au/insights-l-information.htm ------------------------------------------------------
