I did jury service in the UK once. It would terrify me being in court for something I didn't do.
We were clearly instructed to base our decision on the evidence, which there was very little of - just one word against another. At the end the judge seemed to sum up, and it to me seemed that he was advising a non-guilty verdict, based on exactly that lack of evidence. Yet a large proportion of the jury still seemed to base their decision on tabloid headline style judgements and non-evidence.
"OK, the times didn't add up for that bit of the story, but maybe he should be found guilty of that other part, just in case."
Its not some sort of bargain, there is either evidence or there is not. In this case there was not any real evidence.
As I say I would be absolutely terrified to be in that position.
We were clearly instructed to base our decision on the evidence, which there was very little of - just one word against another. At the end the judge seemed to sum up, and it to me seemed that he was advising a non-guilty verdict, based on exactly that lack of evidence. Yet a large proportion of the jury still seemed to base their decision on tabloid headline style judgements and non-evidence.
"OK, the times didn't add up for that bit of the story, but maybe he should be found guilty of that other part, just in case."
Its not some sort of bargain, there is either evidence or there is not. In this case there was not any real evidence.
As I say I would be absolutely terrified to be in that position.