On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 01:21:29 -0000, "Joe Lee"
wrote:
>
>"MM" wrote in message
>news:mf9cu3tq3i15l6gsfg44eos9sve54f3tp8@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 23 Mar 2008 03:25:10 -0000, "Joe Lee"
>> wrote:
>>
>>>What would be gained if they did ?
>>> In no other type of case are juries required to account for their
>>>deliberations or findings.
>>
>> That is because other crimes or accusations of crime, even crimes like
>> murder, do not have the significant repercussions of those that
>> involve indecent images.
>
>You don;t believe that being found guilty uf . would have a far more
>significant repercussion ?
No, I don't. When did you ever hear of rapists being targeted by
vigilantes? Yet they have committed far worse crimes. There is a
significant proportion in the general public that believes women are
often themselves to blame, often by the way they dress. Whether one
goes along with that or not, it's a fact that a lot of people don't
attach the same degree of evil to . and murder as they have been
schooled to attach to those involved with indecent images.
>And I think that being found guilty of murder & being imprisoned for forty
>or more years would be of far greater significance.
Forty years? An exceptional sentence, I would suggest. And it's NOT
just the sentence I'm thinking of when I read, for instance, how
upwards of thirty men, some with young families, committed suicide due
to persecution by a vicious mob (the police) for possessing indecent
(not .ographic) images or for possessing none, but merely for being
under suspicion, as the tabloids have been insinuating against Murat
in Portugal. You don't think those are significant repercussions that
completely change children's and wives' and relatives' lives merely
for looking at pixels of artwork that can be openly purchased from UK
bookshops, when rapists and murderers suffer none of these?
>> And I believe a great deal would be revealed
>> if this *were* treated as a special case for juries to be made to
>> account for their deliberations.
>>
>> I think you would find in many, perhaps most, cases the main driving
>> factor would be fear. Fear, that is, that in some way a juror might
>> him or herself be accused at a later date of being "soft" on child
>> abuse.
>
>It's for exactly that type of reason that whatever takes place in a jury
>room never goes outside.
You mean, let's sweep it under the carpet and pretend not to hear?
Jersey, anyone?
>> One sees in this ng frequently how certain, often random,
>> statements are construed as evidence of kiddy fiddling by the
>> Perianders,the Palindromes et al (you know who you are!),
>
>I recognise the names of course, I'm not particularly familiar with
>Periander's posts & haven't seen what you claim. I have though read a great
>many of Palindrome's contrinutions though (including those in this thread)
>& I can categorically say I have never seen her make a comment that could be
>construed as an accusation of kiddy fiddlimg.
You need to look deeper, then.
>> although
>> naturally enough they would take umbrage at such a suggestion. Like
>> lisbart faced with the CPS and threats to remove her children just
>> before a trial, what juror will dare to stand up and say, "I don't
>> believe this image is indecent."? The tendency will be to gang up and
>> take the easy option, to come down hardest on the defendant, because
>> by doing so the jurors will remove all traces of suspicion falling
>> upon themselves.
>
>That's another good reason for why what takes place in a jury room should
>remain totally confidential. In cases where a majority verdict is given, no
>one (other than the jury members themselves), can ever know which way a
>particular juror voted.
See above.
>> There's another good example of this process right now, in that the
>> judge in a second case of apparent leniency has been strongly
>> criticised by the child abuse industry and the sentence he passed is
>> going to be reviewed by the CoA.
>
>Being criticised is an occupational hazard for Judges. they can never please
>everyone all the time.
But curiously it's nearly always the child abuse industry that shouts
loudest - because they know they have such a receptive audience, such
as yourself, Palindrome et al.
>< The newspapers, again naturally, due
>> to their vulture-like response whenever a feeding frenzy starts over
>> anything concerning child .ual abuse (though not physical abuse to
>> anything like the same extent, thus exposing their prurient interest
>> in such cases), know probably few details, but the judge is being
>> painted as a friend of child abusers, i.e. quasi guilty *himself* by
>> association.
>
>I agree. It's part of the price we pay for a free press. The vast majority
>of the press are concerned only with their circulation figures i.e. revenue
>& we've seen hysteria whipped up to such an extent that a paediatrician has
>cinw under attack.
But surely this state of affairs is completely wrong and equivalent to
McCarthy-style witch-hunts? Why don't the papers mount such virulent
attacks, practically condoning vigilante action, upon car and van
drivers who persist in driving at well over the speed limit in
surburban areas and who actually do thereby kill or maim children (and
adults) regularly? Many here have claimed that driving and using a
mobile phone is not such a big deal, really. Where are the media then?
"Couldn't give a monkey's!"
>I was okeased though to see the Express Group pay a price for their freedom
>when they libelled the McCann family.
I am glad you're pleased. I am MORE than pleased. I am over the moon
shouting to the rooftops pleased that at last one gutter tabloid group
has had its collar felt in a very material way.
Now have a look here
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/23/nmurat123.xml
And tell me that Murat, too, does not also deserve a front page
apology and half a million in damages?
>> The Telegraph reports: "Claude Knights, the director of children's
>> charity Kidscape, said: 'We now have a second child . offence case
>> involving a judge who has made some very disturbing decisions.
>>
>> 'If we get another case like this I think there would need to be some
>> sort of review of the judge's knowledge of this area.' "
>>
>> In other words, Claude Knights (a woman, by the way) believes SHE is
>> right and the judge is wrong. Yet she is a mere director of a
>> children's charity, presumably with the continuation of donations
>> occupying a portion of her day, whereas the judge has years of
>> experience as a crown court judge.
>
>I don;t know anything abour this.
Can't you be bothered to look? Don't you care about injustice?
>> Another thing that would be exposed is the reason why the government
>> is so intent on criminalising *images* (they now want to criminalise
>> certain kinds of adult .ography
>
>
>< and several MPs are castigating
>> Playstation/Gameboy games) when the benefit to children by so doing is
>> risibly small to non-existent. I happen to believe there is a
>> deliberate conspiracy to introduce a bogeyman that is the equivalent
>> of Reds under the Bed for the Yanks, or Jews for the Germans in the
>> 1930s.
>
>Of course there is. There always is, It's a function of Government to create
>an enemy that only they can protect us from.
And therefore we should do everything we can to oppose such sinister
forces, yes?
MM |