tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7878592054777492431.post4576129820431628650..comments2024-01-20T10:32:53.309+10:00Comments on CairnsBlog.net: Saturday SoapBlog: Elizabeth Hulm - The offensive against a woman’s right to chooseMichael P Moorehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02890121680113642715noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7878592054777492431.post-5315793878438094402010-10-16T18:41:25.865+10:002010-10-16T18:41:25.865+10:00Chris, I don't think you're completely cor...Chris, I don't think you're completely correct on jury procedure. That administrative procedural stuff happens or is sorted after empanelment and during breaks or whatever before the jury retires for final deliberations.<br /><br />At least that is my memory from jury duty a few years ago now and it's mostly pretty informal and consensus based. What should be said is that many people try to avoid jury duty but I personally found this a very worthwhile experience. Mine was a grievous bodily harm case at a Cape York community and we acquitted as it was clearly not beyond any reasonable doubt, which was actually mostly agreed in the jury room after the second witness but we had to do another day after that. However the experience was insightful.<br /><br />With regards to the time it takes to make a decision we actually made our decision quickly and then sat around reading magazines for a bit to make it look like we had considered the things the Judge said we should before boredom said bugger it, lets just go out and say so even if it looks too short and sweet.<br /><br />It is clear that where the case is value based, unlike say murder, whether it be abortion or defamation, a jury is pretty much like a lottery! We call that a justice system?<br /><br />By the way my two most profound periphal recollections from jury duty were the bailiff sitting down to lunch at the next table to the jury with a local legal identity known for shonky connections and fondness for recreational drugs and jury room reading material including a copy of (now retired)shock jock John Laws 'Uncommon Sense' .... appropriate NOT!KitchenSluthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15947481064967081891noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7878592054777492431.post-77000825927623353962010-10-16T13:33:06.701+10:002010-10-16T13:33:06.701+10:00So let me get this right Zogo Le; juries should ne...So let me get this right Zogo Le; juries should never convict on Police evidence is that what you're saying?<br /><br />Actually that would certainly streamline the justice system. Those who wished to plead guilty could do so in the Magistrates Court and receive the appropriate penalty. Those who elected to plead not guilty could then have the matter struck out by the magistrate and walk free. Hmmm - can you identify any shortcomings with your system there old mate? No - didn't think so.<br /><br />Sometimes it's good to be reminded of that valuable old piece of advice gifted to us by Mark Twain, "It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."<br /><br />But then again Zogo, coming from me, this would be all a lie wouldn't it mate?<br /><br />Have a great week-end!<br /><br />RussRuss Parkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08846936223568908845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7878592054777492431.post-82266515132822025962010-10-16T11:29:35.609+10:002010-10-16T11:29:35.609+10:00Common-sense has prevailed - Serg and Tegan were a...Common-sense has prevailed - Serg and Tegan were acquitted in less than an hour of jury deliberations. It usually takes at least an hour once a jury has retired before they even consider the case - ordinarily, they spend ten minutes 'electing' a 'foreman', receiving a brief from court staff or the bailiff swallows-up another 20 minutes - the jury room settling-in process includes the bailiff's advice as to when they can expect cups of tea, lunch breaks, which evidentiary documents they can ask for should they wish - and a few other appropriate protocols.<br /><br /> When a jury reaches a verdict in 50 minutes (or was it 15), it should be abundantly clear to the prosecution that the case should never have gone to court in the first place.<br /> The grace and dignity displayed by the defendants throughout is also worthy of comment. This contrasts with the blatant absurdity of advice proffered to the jury (as reported in the local rag) by the prosecution that "they should not make a moral decision".<br /><br /> The prosecution clearly was demanding that jurors ignore any concept of 'what's right and what's wrong' - but instead endorse the letter of a 19th century law. Obviously, the legislators of 1898, when the 'abortion law' was drafted (enacted in 1899), could have no concept of the Queensland citizenry of the 21st. century. <br /><br />The jurors got it right - but does it automatically give a legal precedent endorsement of "a woman's right to choose", as the sisterhood is claiming ? <br />Not quite - pro-choice activists appear to have mistakenly placed the lovely Tegan as a lady who, by herself and of her own free will, made the decision to swallow a few RU428s.<br /><br /> This is not quite 'what happened' - in fact, Serg and Tegan, together, made this decision - as a 'loving couple' who were perfectly entitled to decide when, and if, they bring kids in to the world....<br /> There is a significant difference between a woman ALONE choosing to terminate a pregnancy - and a couple jointly doing so. <br />Granted, the defendants were charged separately - one would hope that this was not a grubby tactic on the part of the police, a despicable attempt to split the couple, hence increasing the chance of getting at least one conviction.<br /><br /> On balance, the jury swiftly, correctly judged the case on it's merits - but given the fact that it was a mutual decision by a couple in a permanent relationship, this case does not serve as a total recedent for open slather on a "woman's right to choose".<br /><br />But it is, most certainly, a giant step in the right direction for pro-choice advocates, who are to be commended for the support they gave Serg and Tegan.<br /><br />The reaction to the verdict by our state politicians has been, perhaps predictably, appalling. Clearly this antiquated 19th. Century law should be repealed at once - it won't be: Anna Bligh obviously lacks the gumption to act - and LNP Health Shadow, future leader Tim Nicholls, has come-out defending the efficacy of the ancient law, slagging the defendants in the process.<br /><br />Disgusting, disgraceful conduct on the part of Nicholls, who would appear to have been catering to the out-dated whims of his National Party back-benchers, many, perhaps most, of whom are themselves 19th century.<br /><br />chris forsberg bayview heightsUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16537365543935808730noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7878592054777492431.post-80124265688400178052010-10-16T09:59:28.636+10:002010-10-16T09:59:28.636+10:00It's very important jury members realize that ...It's very important jury members realize that perjury and fabricated evidence is how police operate. They compulsively lie. I urge jurys to never convict from police evidence. <br /><br />Police always lie. <br /><br />Never convict in a court room. There is no "Law" there only, Satan. Have self respect jurys and never believe police. I urge.Warren Entschhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00462482057601124018noreply@blogger.com