posted on Jul, 19 2012 @ 09:48 AM
Originally posted by XeroOne
But it was the juries in both cases who found the accused innocent. In the first case the jury took four days to reach its verdict, and it's quite
possible Tomlinson's heavy drinking also contributed to his death. Plus there was no way the policeman could have expected Tomlinson would have died
as a result of his actions.
What would you replace the jury system with?
edit on 19-7-2012 by XeroOne because: (no reason given)
I wouldn't. Personally, i love the jury system. It is by the far best guarantee of a fair trial, provided the rules of law are followed correctly.
And by this i mean proper enforcement of reporting restrictions before trial, etc, rather than judicially trained juries.
The problem with the Tomlinson case is that we have all seen the video in question - it has been played on media enough over the years. My other
problem with it is that the Police always get away with it in cases like this. If Officers have been found to be abusing their powers, like recent
cases highlighting things like rogue officers targetting women victims of crime for sex, they are always tried properly.
If, however, it is for wrongdoing in the line of duty (such as this case or smashing into other cars) they are never found guilty. I find that hard to
believe - the law of averages say at least some should be found guilty. For example, there was a case near where i live over a decade ago. Police car
responding to call (alleged by Police but never proven in court) smashed into the back of a car stopped at traffic lights. Lights can be seen for at
least 1/2 mile away, so no excuse they couldn't see the car during the "response". Some people in car killed, case thrown out of court. Plenty more
details to it but, in effect, it was a very straightforward case. If a normal member of public had done the same (or an Ambulance Driver), they would
have faced jail. This case was simply thrown out.
There are a myriad other such examples and that is where my problem with decisions like these comes into play.
All that said, we come back to juries. And i wouldn't do away with juries. The question then to be answered should be how did they come to a not
guilty verdict? In instances like this, the verdicts and the decision process should be explained. Otherwise it seriously opens questions about
whether or not the jury was "leant on" to come to this decision.