I’m strongly in sympathy with #5 – although the expression (this is true regardless of what others tell you) is a bit odd. Sort of pre-empting debate.

Sorry that didn’t come across as i hoped. I was actually just trying to acknowledge the ‘other side’ of the debate.

I’m strongly in sympathy with #5 – although the expression (this is true regardless of what others tell you) is a bit odd. Sort of pre-empting debate.

But I think you are being a shade harsh on the jury. The facts of the case were not in dispute, so three hours, while not very long, is scarcely leaping lemming like.

It could be that they were, in fact, following their consciences as you urge. The judge’s comments, as reported, suggest he was sympathetic and would impose a minimum, perhaps time-served sentence. We must hope so and wait & see.

Is it possible that they sincerely thought that a not-guilty verdict in clear disregard of the facts would open the door to less clear-cut killings which could be presented as mercy killings? That they were not just blindly obeying authority?

I’m strongly in favour of the right to die, and we need a change in the law. But our current situation makes every euthanasia case ad hoc, if juries consistently acquit in cases of mercy killing it is possible that the unscrupulous will see it as a way of disposing of troublesome dependants. People can be bastards, that’s why we have laws.

I’m not saying that that was their thought process, but that it is possible. And not discreditable.

Personally, assuming the reports reflect the reality, I would have acquited. But not as a matter of course and I concede that a well argued case could have swayed me.

However, as soon as you accept the principle that jurors should acquit if they think the law is bad, regardless of the evidence, then you get people being let off because one juror does not think that they have done anything wrong. Just look at the Deep South in America in the segregation era.

If the jury can’t come to a unanimous verdict after a reasonable amount of time, they can be given the option of reaching a majority verdict. If you’re implying a substantial part of the jury would disagree in anycase (despite re-trials) then we get back to the ‘will of the people’ being meaningless.

I’m not sure what the rest of your argument is, if you’re saying you would have found Frank Lund guilty then you pretty much come under the worthless human being tag from my pov. If you’re saying ‘it depends’ (some laws are wrong etc), then im not really sure what we’re disagreeing about. Would you have found Frank Lund guilty?

However, as soon as you accept the principle that jurors should acquit if they think the law is bad, regardless of the evidence, then you get people being let off because one juror does not think that they have done anything wrong. Just look at the Deep South in America in the segregation era.

Judging by your previous posts on the police, you have something of an anarchist streak in you (forgive me if I have misrepresented you), which is fine, because at least you are consistent in your attitudes to authority/law/order.

Though the system is flawed, I quite like the idea that democratically-elected legislators make the law. There are too many laws at the moment and most are too complex, but I am still not sure what would produce a better system.

The modern reason for a jury’s independence is not so they can ignore evidence, but so that prosecutions that are clearly politically motivated and have no evidential basis can be thrown out, whereas if it was a judge deciding there might be more pressure on him/her to return a guilty verdict.

Those who leaked the memo were guilty, and the only scandal is that ministers who leak information are not also prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act.

The effect of this scene is so powerful that I leaned forward like a jury member, wanting her to get away with it so I could find her innocent. But the law moves as the law always does, with no reference to higher justice; even in this Nazi procedure there are carbon copies and paper clips and rubber stamps and a need to see the law followed, as indeed it is. The law underpins evil, but it is observed. When Sophie is found guilty, it is legal enough.

The sentence against her is carried out with startling promptness; because of the movie’s title, we are not surprised, but we are jolted. I was reminded of an exchange in “Thank You for Smoking,” where the son of a tobacco lobbyist asks him, “Dad, why is the American government the best government?” And his father replies, “Because of our endless appeals system.” It is a luxury to be able to joke about such things. One day Sophie Scholl thoughtlessly throws some leaflets off a balcony, and two days later she is dead. Notice how the final sounds of the movie play under a black screen. Does she hear them?

Your reasoning leads to a situations where members of the public leap lemming like to verdicts of guilty when faced with frankly heartbreaking situations. You may well only look at the facts like an automaton. I will justify everything – including the law – for myself. Frank Lund may be guilty of murder, but he has more humanity in one finger than every single one of those jurors combined.

“If you do not agree with the principles that the conviction is brought on you should not find anyone guilty”

In other words, if someone is being tried for a racist murder, and you are a white supremacist, then you should acquit, even if the defendant is clearly guilty; the public should rejoice because you are ignoring what you believe to be an unjust law. That is what this line of reasoning leads to.

I last wrote about the Al Jazeera Memo a short while ago. Sunny at Pickled Politics has the latest here and here. If anyone has a copy of the Memo I’d be pleased to get a copy too.  

……

Bombing of reporters as an extreme form of intimidation is not acceptable.

We should have a campaign to have the memo formally released and analysed for any criminal intent.

Blair: Are you sure we should involve Qatar?

Bush: in this country, when we have a serious meeting, we like to offer our guests you know those things, bits of bacon rolled around a stick and chuncks of pineapple, what do you call them?

Blair: Canapes?

Bush: That’s right, so I think it’s important to involve our cater

Blair: Right, now about al-jazeera, is it wise to target a civilian station?

Bush: You’re so incredibly innocent and navy, you british. Have you ever been to a gas station?

Blair: Er, yes.

Bush: Who’s there buying the gas? Civilians. Why are we in Iraq? Gas. Who wants to take the gas off us without paying us? Civilians. Man, how you people ruled the entire planet before we took over I’ll never know

Blair: okay let’s do it. Are you going to use smart bombs like you did in Kabul or just blanket bomb them like Fallujah? i mean we could always send them Chris Evans, that way we can kill off the listeners too ho ho

Bush: Sorry, um, do you mind passing me the mustard? Donald! We got an emergency here! I mean really, most powerful empire in the world and we ain’t got mustard to go with our hot dogs. You know what this means don’t you?

Blair: War?

Bush: Bend over and squeal like a piggy, Tony