The Verdict

[Rheghead]

Has anyone been watching this programme?

I have been extremely impressed with Stan Collymore's conduct in this show. He keeps mentioning that the jurors have to just examine the evidence rather than be influenced by one's emotions. Scarily, not all of the jurors, in fact, most seem to have formed their opinion before all the evidence has been given and act accordingly when deliberating.

Is anyone else as frustrated about how closed-minded people act in juries as much as me???

Surely, jurors should get a bit more training than just being thrown into a jury?

[percy toboggan]

I watched twenty minutes of the first programme. This is plumbing new depths in televisual presentation. Gather a gang of so called celebrities - yet again - some with dodgy pasts. One, whose young daughter was brutally attacked and murdered and a few assorted bit part actors and actresses, and a woman who made a fortune selling 'sex-toys' To cap it all the charge is rape. A particularly sordid rape featuring wait for it....a professional footballer ! In my view this is sheer voyeuristic viewing and a completely pointless exercise. I understand that some of the legal processes are explained and illustrated. Fine. Why not use unknowns to make up the jury?Why not use a less salacious charge - can burglary not compete with y in the attention spans of viewers? I'm surprised the BBC have staged this programme. It smacks more of Channel 4. There is enough nastiness and lurid behaviour in the world without bringing this garbage into the living rooms of Britain. Whatever happened to entertainment?

As for Collymore 'behaving' well, that makes a change from his 'dogging' activities and knocking women about.

[Rheghead]

Ah but Percy, their morality mix could mirror the non celebrity morality mix quite accurately.

The fact that celebs are being used is just a mere side show, I don't even think of them as being famous. The real star of the programme is the age-old conflict from the Jury's duty to deliberate purely on the evidence and that of deliberating on one's emotions or beliefs surrounding the evidence.

[Angela]

I must say I chose not to watch this programme.

I've never been asked to serve on a jury (so far).

I'd feel quite anxious at the prospect - firstly because of the responsibility - I'm not sure how good I would be at examining the evidence, rather than reacting emotionally.

Secondly I especially dread the thought of having to study the evidence in a lengthy case that involves violence and brutality.

[percy toboggan]

But Rheghead , do you not realise the agenda of each of these celebrities might include the need to emerge from this with enhanced career prospects? It's a totally artificial concept. I'd have been very interested to watch the deliberations of an anonymous jury , perhaps on a lesser charge or at least not such a sensational scenario. Today though it almost seems if it ain't 'celebrity' it ain't jack!

[MadPict]

So, what the hell is that criminal Archer doing sitting on a jury? If I'm not wrong anyone who has served time cannot sit on a juy for ten years.

These are Z listers who couldn't get their agents to get them into the celebrity Big Brother house and so have to settle for the next best thing. I am fed up to the back teeth with these pathetic individuals who have to do anything to keep themselves in the (not-so)limelight......

[SNOWDOG]

All ive seen Stan do is bully people into agreeing with him and taking the hump when they dont!!

[nightowl]

I missed the last episode of "The Verdict". Did anyone see the final outcome?

[_Ju_]

not guilty on any count

[nightowl]

Thanks Ju.

[Rheghead]

not guilty on any count

I was very surprised at that.

[_Ju_]

It was not proven. It didn't mean he "didn't do it". Just that the proof for conviction was not there. As some caracters said, they beleived he was guilty.

[Rheghead]

How much proof does one need? The forensic evidence was overwhelming.

It was a classic case of the defence breaking the evidence down into discrete blocks and putting the doubt in the Jury's mind on each one. OK, logically that might work for each piece of evidence on its own, ie there is a 1/x chance of it being not what it is, but when they do it to each piece of the evidence, then collectively they are making the odds or the product of them happening very long indeed, to the point where for those pieces of evidence to happen then it must be beyond reasonable doubt. That is a problem for Jury's because each juror will focus upon one bit of evidence and ignore the rest.

The defence relied heavily on the gold digger defence, not true evidence, if that will always happen then I am afraid all people with money are above the law in cases like this, do we really want that to happen?

[_Ju_]

Well, I think over here the the evidence has to be beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal offence. In a civil case the burden of proof need only be the preponderance of the evidence. For a criminal case the proof of burden HAS to be beyond a reasonable doubt to avoid that an innocent person be condemned for a crime they did not commit. Even so, what is reasonable doubt for one person may not be for another. That is where subjectivity comes in and why juries are so carefully screened by the defense.

Justice is a wonderful utopia. But unlike the statue that usually portrays it, it's not completely blind. It has a very acute visual acumen for bank statements, and tends to favor those with lots of decimal houses in their contents. We don't get the justice we deserve, but the justice we can pay for. As has happened in this simulated court.