Thursday, May 26, 2005



Back in the world

Or as Samwise Gamgee would put it, "well, I'm back". I have spent the last three days deliberating in a jury trial. I have spent two nights as a guest of Her Majesty, and eaten some truly terrible food. I have not seen a newspaper (or surfed the net) since Tuesday morning. Yes, this means I slacked on Monday, when I originally expected to be locked up, so sue me...

There will be a slight pause while I catch up with what has been happening, but I'll probably start spewing content again tonight. There may be a slight interruption again tomorrow morning as I queue in the rain for the annual Red Cross book sale (an irresistable temptation), but otherwise its back to bloggage as usual.

Oh, and if you're wondering about the verdict, it was sadly "guilty" on all counts.

4 comments:

Speaking of trials my own one took a step closer today.

Posted by t selwyn : 5/26/2005 09:51:00 PM

Do you mind if I ask why it is sad that the count is guilty? I.e. is it because you think that the person(s) wasn't guilty or that they were but it was a shame that was the case?

Cheers
Scott

Posted by Anonymous : 5/27/2005 08:32:00 AM

The latter - but sympathy isn't really a good reason for acquittal. There's also a moral cost to conviction, especially on charges this grave, and I can fully understand both why the courts try very hard to stop the jury finding out about the possible sentence that the accused face, and why juries in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries systematically rebelled rather than play a part in executing someone for stealing a loaf of bread.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 5/27/2005 09:11:00 AM

you would have given him
1) a lesser sentance.
2) a totally different type of sentance.
3) no sentance at all.

The law should not be about punishment (I think I remember a minister agreeing with me at one stage by listing the reasons for sentancing and excluding punishment).If it isnt about punishment then there is no reason for the sentance to fit the crime. One of its roles (there are others) is to make crime unprofitable for the vast majority of people. this means if you catch one out of every 10 theives the punishment needs to be 10 times the amount they could have expected to have earnt plus a bit more (in time or in money). What this means is that a person who steals a loaf of bread might need a fairly heavy punishment since so few people get caught for stealing bread and if there was no punishment then many people would do it (and set up stolen bread reselling stores!).

Tim,
Ahh how can someone who sounds as sensible as you go and attack the prime ministers office with an axe?
Oh well - good luck I guess.

Posted by Genius : 5/27/2005 09:47:00 AM