Sorry Glidd disagree. The people in power are in possession of facts which include now and future assessments, they also make decisions based on personal as well as country/company direction and benefit. A copper chasing a bloke with a backpack, or a marine whos just called in air support and they've cut down most of the opposition, is thinking in life or death NOW moments.Therefore I reserve my right to criticise who j like in power ;-)
You are right in saying that all our opinions, from the comfort of our sofas, count for very little. However at the Court Martial what really did count was the verdict reached by a jury of seven officers and WOs, all experienced in operations, who had heard all the evidence. And that verdict was guilty of murder. Who is going to sit on their sofa and dispute that?
I will, by posing a question.( albeit I am not sat on my sofa) I wonder if the fact that they were 'officers and WOs, all experienced in operations' is really relevant? In civilian courts, your job/background and experience aren't, if I understand it right , pre requisites to being on a jury for any specific case. would a ' random 12 civilians' ( for want of a different term) have returned the same verdict? Could the fact of the officers/WOs 'operational ' roles/experience given them a potential accidental ( and i emphasise this, there is no hint from me of misdeeds) bias from their own pertinent military experience? As in ' they know' the situations that are experienced and (maybe partially) form an opinion for themselves, as opposed to 100% evidence as heard. Rhetorical because we will never know. But an interesting ( from my point of view) observation.
Imho they would. Given the evidence in the cold of day it was murder. If the guy wasn't dead he is now. But its context which often see,s lacking in any court case, like a woman who poisons her husband and gets done for murder even tho she has sufferred 15 years of abuse and terror. Murder? Yes. Murderer? Not so sure...
I used to spend a good deal of time worrying about similar points. In civilian Crown Courts, juries are selected entirely at random (and there are elaborate precautions in place to make sure it is random) from a very large pool of people who have no prior knowledge at all of the matters in issue in the cases they hear. The Court Martial is not a civilian court, and the juries ("boards") are picked at random from a very small pool of available officers and WOs. They have no personal knowledge of the defendant or witnesses, but they have a great deal of personal experience of the subject matter and the context. Say there is a trial about an offence committed in a Royal Navy submarine - should the jury include a submariner? Or should it not include a submariner? Say it is a flying offence - should the jury include a pilot, or not? Neither the statute nor the rules nor the guidance say anything whatever about this, nor are there any precedents from the Court of Appeal. The issue is simply unresolved so far.
and at the final cut the defendant and his expensive Barrister get to have a say on who's in there and who's not………….for example more females more ethnic minorities less females……………….all part of the game considering what sort of jury YOU the defendant want!
I'm no lawyer but seem to remember when doing jury duty that BOTH sides had the right to reject jury members up to a certain number. So its not one sided and it makes sense (to a simple sole like me) that both sides are satisfied with who will be judging the case. John
There are two different issues here - peremptory challenges and challenges for cause. The number of peremptory challenges (i.e. excluding a jury member without having to give any reason) is strictly limited, and in some jurisdictions is nil. Making challenges for cause has to be allowed, but the challenger has to explain the reasons for objecting to a particular juryman and the judge rules upon whether those reasons are valid and legitimate. It would be hard to persuade a judge that simply objecting to females or objecting to blacks, for example, were legitimate objections. In USA, jury pools are questioned in some detail ("voire dire") about their views, etc and challenges may be based on what they say; less so in UK.
So the defence or prosecution make up a reason in their effort to gain an advantage or negate a disadvantage……………all part of the game plus it takes up a bit more time of the 2000 pound a day…..
I'm sure Pete has seen it all before. Doing banking tonight! You got room in your car for a small one?
