POSSIBLE SPOILER - Episode Three
The mother had to call the police station with a reference number to find out more about her son's death...
Is this working like that in reality??? I hope not!!
I think I'd be more concerned with the fact that a Jury can let someone off a serious crime because they feel a bit sorry for them.
shareI'd thought that the jury would still have to find her guilty as she had committed the crime. It would be up to the judge to be lenient.
shareI've liked all the in the series so far. Re Helen's Story - I think that was McGovern saying that people do feel that sometimes the law is wrong and crims have too many rights. Yes Helen did what she did but the jury gave the judiciary one in the eye by giving a not guilty verdict and turning the tables or you might say the same treatment. It redressed the balance so to speak. Helen's son's death was clearly covered up, the business owner had a lawyer Helen represented herself. I cheered for a not guilty on Helen as I do think Willy got rough justice. The ep that really had me glued was the second one.
share"if I had been on that jury I would have found in her favour for the sake of justice for her son"
First point, its vigilante justice. If everyone used that as an excuse for doing reckless things we would live in chaos.
Second point is that a jury wouldnt be able to make this decision. Two things come to mind. If she admitted her guilt, there would be no jury. If she pleaded not guilty and then admitted to it (albeit with arguably mitigating circumstances)the judge would direct the jury to find her guilty. Jurors have an obligation to judge on the basis of the law regardless how unfair it may appear.
If you allow jurys to make decisions based on emotion rather than law you kill the entire criminal and legal system. Regardless how flawed it is you cannot have decisions made on whims. This made me really, really annoyed as I had enjoyed the show up until this ludicrous point!
Final point: Who is to say that there was any truth in what she was saying? It was her story and was not backed up by corroboration or witness evidence. I'll try it; I'll blow up something and say I did it because of emotional reasons. See how far it gets me in the real world!!
I think poor old Kenny got the roughest justice of all. These stories are deliberately very emotive as well as criticizing the justice system. We are never shown the full court trials - only given a verdict to make us feel sorry for the accused - so I think in that respect they cheat.
shareAs someone who has spent many years working in the judicial system, matters like this one return not guilty verdicts quite often. I like to think of it as justice.I remember one matter quite well - a small town, chap was shot over a dozen times, loads of evidence, but the jury found the defendant not guilty!! Why? because they hated the dead guy more than the defendant! Battered wives - many found not guilty because the jury feel bad for them. I had a matter not long ago where a chap was belted around the head with a golf club and the jury found the defendant not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter. Ummm hello - if you hit someone on the knee caps yes, i get manslaughter - but around the head well duhhhh, do you really think the person is going to survive? Bottom line - juries are human.
share