Pell Pot pedophile verdict and the jury system

2

Comments

  • The victims made it up.

    That's the verdict.

    Nice.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    Thank you for all your comments. But nothing anyone has said has made me rethink my first conclusion - that this is an undermining of the whole jury system.

    I make no comment on the specifics of the case. I don't know whether Pell acted as accused or not.

    But I fear that in future Jurors will be unwilling to put in the time and effort to deliberate seriously - weeks in court and days in deliberation, and in my experience everyone took their duties very seriously - if the High Court can then turn round and declare the jury incompetent and overturn their verdict. Not because of new evidence, just because they didn't like the verdict. (Frankly, how dare the High Court declare a jury's deliberations 'unreasonable' with no evidence at all - it's impossible to obtain - that they didn't do their job properly).

    Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps Dee G or SimonToad can enlighten me. But from where I'm sitting I'm astonished. I never expected the High Court of Australia to undermine the jury system. But perhaps that's what they want - all trials to be judge only. If so, that's a huge change in our justice system - and needs to be done in a considered manner, not in this hole in a corner way.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Simon Toad wrote: »

    Dan Andrews (Victorian Premier) says everything that needs to be said about this decision. Here it is in full:
    I make no comment about today’s High Court decision.

    But I have a message for every single victim and survivor of child sex abuse:

    I see you.

    I hear you.

    I believe you.

    Any chance of him ever becoming PM? He sounds heaps more civilised than the present incumbent.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    That is a very generous comment, but very little of my practice was in criminal law. It's just that I think that criminal law is a basic part of society and by far the single most important area of the legal system and so have followed developments closely. I know quite a few people who practise in the area.

  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    Gee D , I'm sorry I got your name wrong!
  • The victims made it up.

    That's the verdict.

    Nice.

    It's not. It's that there were enough questions about the victim's testimony (and I seem to recall only one was alive to testify) to not be able to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. If there was serious belief that the victim had made it up presumably we'd be looking at whatever is the Aus version of attempting to pervert the course of justice or perjury. This is simply an instance of what would be in Scots law "not proven".
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Marama wrote: »
    Gee D , I'm sorry I got your name wrong!

    Did you? I must have read over it, as it were.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    The victims made it up.

    That's the verdict.

    Nice.

    It's not. It's that there were enough questions about the victim's testimony (and I seem to recall only one was alive to testify) to not be able to prove the crime beyond reasonable doubt. If there was serious belief that the victim had made it up presumably we'd be looking at whatever is the Aus version of attempting to pervert the course of justice or perjury. This is simply an instance of what would be in Scots law "not proven".

    Victim A gave evidence, but Victim B had died a few years ago from causes entirely unrelated to whatever may or may not have occurred. It's interesting that not quite 20 years ago, Victim B's mother asked him directly if anything had happened in his days at the Cathedral choir, and he said that nothing had.

    I think it's important to note that only Victim A gave evidence of assaults on particular days. He was, of course, cross-examined about that. On the other hand, there were a half dozen or more witnesses who gave evidence which, if accepted, meant that the offences could not have occurred. The prosecutor did not challenge them on that evidence. I find it hard to understand that given that state of the evidence, the jury did not have at least the reasonable doubt.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Marama wrote: »
    Thank you for all your comments. But nothing anyone has said has made me rethink my first conclusion - that this is an undermining of the whole jury system.

    I make no comment on the specifics of the case. I don't know whether Pell acted as accused or not.

    But I fear that in future Jurors will be unwilling to put in the time and effort to deliberate seriously - weeks in court and days in deliberation, and in my experience everyone took their duties very seriously - if the High Court can then turn round and declare the jury incompetent and overturn their verdict. Not because of new evidence, just because they didn't like the verdict. (Frankly, how dare the High Court declare a jury's deliberations 'unreasonable' with no evidence at all - it's impossible to obtain - that they didn't do their job properly).

    Perhaps I'm missing something. Perhaps Dee G or SimonToad can enlighten me. But from where I'm sitting I'm astonished. I never expected the High Court of Australia to undermine the jury system. But perhaps that's what they want - all trials to be judge only. If so, that's a huge change in our justice system - and needs to be done in a considered manner, not in this hole in a corner way.

    I think it’s worth saying that the High Court has not done anything new here. In terms of how many jury trials there are, it is not hugely common for a jury verdict to be overturned in appeal, but it is not an extraordinary event. Very few such cases, however, are so high profile.

    In the jurisdictions I know a little about it has been possible for decades to overturn a jury’s guilty verdict on appeal. In England and Wales an appeal court will in some circumstances order a retrial (with a new jury) rather than an acquittal.
  • Marama wrote: »
    Thank you for all your comments. But nothing anyone has said has made me rethink my first conclusion - that this is an undermining of the whole jury system.

    No, it’s an undermining of that specific jury that made that specific decision. If you were under the impression that any legal system viewed juries as infallible, then this case has enlightened you. Juries get things wrong all the time, and many jurors don’t properly understand their role or responsibilities. Higher courts are supposed to deal with that when it happens. If anything, the flaw in many legal systems is that they don’t overturn decisions enough, but that’s because the principle of finality is valued so highly, even when it’s obvious the system has got it wrong.
  • The victim has released a statement, quoted here:
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/08/cardinal-george-pells-witness-j-child-sexual-abuse-survivor-verdict
    I have to say I find myself moved by his courage and grace under the circumstances, and I'm glad he felt himself supported. Too often I hear stories of victims being used simply as a tool in pursuit of a conviction.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    Marama wrote: »
    Thank you for all your comments. But nothing anyone has said has made me rethink my first conclusion - that this is an undermining of the whole jury system.

    No, it’s an undermining of that specific jury that made that specific decision. If you were under the impression that any legal system viewed juries as infallible, then this case has enlightened you. Juries get things wrong all the time, and many jurors don’t properly understand their role or responsibilities. Higher courts are supposed to deal with that when it happens. If anything, the flaw in many legal systems is that they don’t overturn decisions enough, but that’s because the principle of finality is valued so highly, even when it’s obvious the system has got it wrong.

    Well, perhaps - but if the powers that be/lawyers/higher courts have such a low opinion of juries, then why do we persist with the system? You seem to be saying it would be better if everything were decided by lawyers and judges. Clearly juries aren't infallible, but then neither are judges. In fact jurors are told over and over again about the responsibilities they bear, how careful they must be because they are making such momentous decisions - I know, I've been there. And they take that responsibility seriously, in my experience. And no, I did not know, nor as a juror was I ever told, that without new evidence or a finding of misdirection my deliberations could be overturned.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    I don't think that "the powers that be" have a low opinion of juries, and there's nothing in this decision which could lead to that conclusion.
  • goperryrevsgoperryrevs Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Marama wrote: »
    You seem to be saying it would be better if everything were decided by lawyers and judges.
    Not at all, just that the system needs to be able to overturn wrong decisions, and occasionally that means overruling a jury’s decision. It doesn’t happen often.

    I’m talking in generalities here - I know little about this specific case.

    And we persist with the system because, as has already been said, it’s the least bad one.
  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    The victim has released a statement, quoted here:
    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/apr/08/cardinal-george-pells-witness-j-child-sexual-abuse-survivor-verdict
    I have to say I find myself moved by his courage and grace under the circumstances, and I'm glad he felt himself supported. Too often I hear stories of victims being used simply as a tool in pursuit of a conviction.

    I am in awe of his courage and hope he continues to get any support he needs .

    Personally I decided against going to the Police to report having been raped because the perpetrator was a policeman's son, and the then Police doctor was himself later jailed for multiple abuses of women and rape (I knew of his reputation amongst women and so wasn't going to risk it being examined by him).

    Since then there has been a change in police attitudes thanks to some courageous survivors becoming involved in police training,
  • RicardusRicardus Shipmate
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    In England&Wales, the defence can apply for a judge-led acquittal at half-time (ie, after the prosecution have presented their case, and before the defence have), often on the grounds that there's no evidence to link their client to the crime being prosecuted.

    It does happen, usually when the cross-examination of prosecution witnesses has undermined their credibility. I am reliably informed that the judge will indicate such a petition might be favourably received by tutting, sighing and rolling their eyes.

    (x-posted with Enoch)

    Thanks. I had an idea that it happened but wasn't sure of the circumstances or if I was confusing criminal and civil law.

    The point (if it wasn't obvious) is that if a judge can (in effect) take on the role of a jury during a trial (by forcing an acquittal), it's not revolutionary to suggest they could also take on that role after a trial (by overturning a conviction).
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    Gee D wrote: »
    I don't think that "the powers that be" have a low opinion of juries, and there's nothing in this decision which could lead to that conclusion.

    I deliberately phrased that vaguely; I don't know whether or not goperryrevs is a lawyer, or has any role to do with the law. But the High Court certainly expressed a low opinion of this jury, and that is not encouraging for future jury trials, if only because jurors may feel their deliberations don't matter.

  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    It happens very, very rarely. Probably less than once a year across Oz, but I have no statistics, just impressions.

    Look again at this case: supporting a conviction you have the evidence of Victim A. Considered against that is the evidence of a half dozen witnesses saying that it just could not have happened as A says because of practices they set out. They were witnesses the Crown called because it has an obligation to put their evidence before the jury; because it was obvious that the evidence would not be favourable, the Crown was given leave to cross-examine those witnesses. As said before, the Crown did not challenge that evidence, and in the absence of any challenge it's hard to see how a jury did not consider that it cast doubt on Victim A's account - sufficient doubt to leave them with a reasonable doubt that Pell committed the offences
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Tukai wrote: »
    But now the High Court of Australia (the highest court in the country) has (in effect) ruled that jury verdicts can be over-ridden on appeal, so long as the defendant can afford a lawyer who can put up any sort of defence beyond "I was drunk your honour". At least that's how their decision today in the Pell Pot case appears to me.

    Well then, you're a blithering idiot.

  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Marama wrote: »
    I'm not saying that juries never get it wrong. But surely the system assumes that on balance the judgement of 12 ordinary citizens can be trusted to reach a reliable verdict. The High Court has, as far as I can see, overturned this entire principle today. I never thought to see them throw out the entire system, but that's what it looks like.

    So you pay attention to one case and think it's the only case where there's been such a decision?

    As far as I can see, you've never read a High Court judgement in your life until now.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    The victims made it up.

    That's the verdict.

    Nice.

    No that is NOT the verdict. That is the exact opposite of what is actually said.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Well I'm glad to hear it doesn't happen often!

    I guess we will see what effect this acquittal has on the jury system in general. Personally, I still think it's worrying. I know I would have been furious had our deliberations been treated in this way.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    What's worrying is how millions of people who have no personal knowledge of the case and no understanding at all of the principles of criminal law think they understand (a) what Pell did and (b) what the judges did.

    I mean, I have no criminal law experience. I have no COURT experience. But there are thousands upon thousands of published court decisions out there, and in Australia in particular it's extremely easy to read them because AustLII was founded here before spreading the "LII" system to the rest of the world.

    And I scan every single High Court decision. I don't tend to read the criminal law ones that closely because they're not especially relevant to my work. But I at least skim them enough to understand what was going on. Plus the court publishes a case summary for every decision.

    So that's, what, 50 cases a year I commit myself to having a look at? Anyone could do that.

    And anyone who DID do that wouldn't be the slightest bit surprised by what happened. I certainly thought it was highly likely the appeal would succeed. Not many criminal appeals do succeed, by the way, but people would also know that if they ever read decisions.

    But no. What we actually get is people who've never bothered in the slightest with the court system but who Have An Opinion About Pell getting all outraged. Mostly because they actually want him to be locked up for how he handled abuse by others, but they don't particularly care about the details. Having him locked up would be satisfying. And symbolic.

    Fuck that. Here in the land of rule of law, we lock people up for specific things that they've been proved to have done. We have rules about how you go about that. The job of judges is to see to it that those rules are adhered to. They weren't.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I've had disquiet about the conviction ever since it was announced. I've had disquiet about the prosecution ever since details emerged of how the Victorian Police basically set up a Pell taskforce before having specific allegations against him and then went looking for stories about Pell.

    The whole thing's a long, expensive mess. And what has it ended up doing for victims of church abuse? Zilch. The symbolic prize of one of the most senior men in the church did not eventuate.

    But hey, we can blame the judges of the High Court and their fairly uncommon unanimous jointly written 7-0 decision. They must have done something wrong. Not the police, not the prosecutors. Not the jury. THEY all gave us what we wanted, so it must be the judges who got it wrong by being such spoilsports.
  • Marama wrote: »
    I don't know whether or not goperryrevs is a lawyer, or has any role to do with the law.
    Not a lawyer. Other than that, what @orfeo said.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    Marama wrote: »
    I'm not saying that juries never get it wrong. But surely the system assumes that on balance the judgement of 12 ordinary citizens can be trusted to reach a reliable verdict. The High Court has, as far as I can see, overturned this entire principle today. I never thought to see them throw out the entire system, but that's what it looks like.

    So you pay attention to one case and think it's the only case where there's been such a decision?

    As far as I can see, you've never read a High Court judgement in your life until now.

    No, I'm not a lawyer, I don't spend my life reading judgements - why would I? So you do - whoop i do! There's no need to be so offensive.

    Several people on this thread have agreed that it is highly unusual for a jury verdict to be overturned without there either being new evidence or a finding of misdirection, faulty expert witness etc. I didn't know it could happen, but I am now told it can - thank you Gee D and others.

    I am not sounding off about Pell, I am concerned about the effect on the jury system, on which I do have some experience - unlike you, apparently.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Marama wrote: »
    No, I'm not a lawyer, I don't spend my life reading judgements - why would I?

    So you could make informed commentary on them?

    Do you also give movie reviews without going to the cinema?
    So you do - whoop i do! There's no need to be so offensive.

    This is Hell. So while offensive is optional, it's not frowned upon and I've had such a gutful of commentary on this case yesterday that the opening post of this thread set me right off.
    Several people on this thread have agreed that it is highly unusual for a jury verdict to be overturned without there either being new evidence or a finding of misdirection, faulty expert witness etc. I didn't know it could happen, but I am now told it can - thank you Gee D and others.

    I am not sounding off about Pell, I am concerned about the effect on the jury system, on which I do have some experience - unlike you, apparently.

    And this is the kind of commentary that annoyed me the most yesterday. The notion that this is novel, or overthrows some kind of existing principle.

    It's not novel. As a decision it barely touches principles except the most basic one of all. It's almost entirely about the facts and evidence of this one case. I mean, I saw one completely insane article yesterday suggesting that this was about a 'technicality', when it's about the most fundamental question in any criminal case: was there sufficient evidence to convict a person beyond reasonable doubt?

    I mean, if we think that's a novel or unusual question, Lord help us. And if we think that a jury verdict must always, always be accepted no matter what, even in an extreme example where the whole world thinks the verdict makes no sense, then that's deeply deeply scary. That's the kind of absolute power we normally avoid giving anyone.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    If you want to see another recent, much lower profile, but frankly more astounding example of an acquittal:

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/cases/cth/HCA/2019/37.html

    The reason that one is so astounding is that at the end of the hearing, the judges left the room for less than 5 minutes, came back and announced the unanimous decision with the reasons to be published later.

    I mean, acquittal rather than retrial is rare enough. But for them all to have concluded that by the end of the hearing? That's amazing.

    It's worth reading as a dissection of a case that made very little sense. I had a look at the transcript and the Crown ended up conceding in the High Court that parts of the prosecution case were fundamentally illogical.

    It happens. It's well known that psychologically people get preconceived ideas and it's very hard to shift away from them even when they stop making sense. You start investigating someone, you're sure they must have done it and so you construct a story where they did do it.

    Just today, a former policeman has been fined $10,000 dollars for making illegal recordings in his quest to pursue a man over the disappearance of a child.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    Are you seriously suggesting that you have to read 50 high court judgements to have an opinion on a legal matter? Don't be ridiculous. This isn't just a matter for lawyers - which is the rather worrying subtext to some of the comments here - it's a matter for all citizens. That is what the jury system is all about - ordinary citizens making considered judgements, based on the wide, general experience they bring to the jury room. They aren't legal experts, and they're not supposed to be - at least that is what we were told by the Chief Justice.

    Now it's quite possible that the jury in this case got it wrong. Of course the issue is 'about the most fundamental question in any criminal case: was there sufficient evidence to convict a person beyond reasonable doubt?' Has anyone ever suggested otherwise? The High Court in this case thought there was not. The original jury thought there was. OK - a difference of opinion. The High Court, I now learn, has the right to overturn the verdict without there being new evidence or a finding of misdirection - and has done so. Perhaps they're right. But as a citizen I have a right to be concerned about the effect on the jury system - even if I haven't read 50 judgements.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Marama wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that you have to read 50 high court judgements to have an opinion on a legal matter?

    No. I'm seriously suggesting you have to read at least a few before having an opinion on whether or not a decision overthrows a fundamental principle of the entire legal system.

    Because how the hell do you know whether or not this decision is unusual if you've never read any decisions?

    And characterising this as "a difference of opinion" is like saying that people who think the moon is made out of rock and those who think the moon is made out of cheese are having a difference of opinion. Sure, that's technically true, but it completely fails to engage with whether both opinions are equally rational.

    Plus for all we know, some or all of the judges might have the personal opinion that Pell is likely to be guilty. That's not the question.
  • anoesisanoesis Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    orfeo wrote: »
    But no. What we actually get is people who've never bothered in the slightest with the court system but who Have An Opinion About Pell getting all outraged. Mostly because they actually want him to be locked up for how he handled abuse by others, but they don't particularly care about the details. Having him locked up would be satisfying. And symbolic.

    Fuck that. Here in the land of rule of law, we lock people up for specific things that they've been proved to have done.
    Preach. I can't help thinking, reading this thread down here in little ole NZ, about the Scott Guy murder case (Wikipedia has general summary). In that instance, I'm convinced the jury made the correct decision, to acquit Ewen MacDonald, because (and you'll have to trust me on this because I've been unable to locate a specific news page reporting it, but it was a thing) - he was known to have been somewhere nearly 2km distant, sans a vehicle, within about 2 mins of the time that multiple witnesses reported hearing shots fired.

    The thing is, during the trial, the jury were kept in the dark about the fact that Ewen MacDonald was already in jail, having pleaded guilty to being either a party to or an intiator of numerous other petty but in some cases fairly deviant crimes, committed in the same general area as this murder. And of course, the reason that the jury were not admitted to this knowledge was the very real possibility that it might prejudice his right to a fair trial.

    In my gut, I have little doubt that Cardinal Pell is a bad man. But that's not the point. Ewen MacDonald, too, is (or at least, was) a reactionary shit of epic proportions, but that, in itself, does not make him a murderer. It's more important to have a legal system that works, than to see that any particular individual receives what the public has been lead to believe is his just desserts.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »

    And characterising this as "a difference of opinion" is like saying that people who think the moon is made out of rock and those who think the moon is made out of cheese are having a difference of opinion. Sure, that's technically true, but it completely fails to engage with whether both opinions are equally rational.

    Another one assuming that the judges of the High Court must be more rational than 12 members of a jury, just because. Your analogy falls down because the jury have been asked to give an opinion, have spent weeks listening to evidence, days in the jury room and have thought about it seriously. To equate them with people who are clearly idiots is offensive. They may be wrong, but to call them unreasonable, incompetent, and irrational is, as I have said before, undermining the system, and unfair.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Saying that he's guilty beyond reasonable doubt when there's all this evidence about how he would never be left alone during a church service IS irrational. That's the whole fucking point.

    And I quote: "the court is satisfied that the jury, acting rationally, ought nonetheless to have entertained a reasonable doubt as to proof of guilt." Paragraph 39.

    "It was evidence which ought to have caused the jury, acting rationally, to entertain a doubt as to the applicant's guilt of the offence charged in the second incident. In relation to charge five, again making full allowance for the jury's advantage, there is a significant possibility that an innocent person has been convicted." Paragraph 127.

    If you want to say that the 7 highest judges in the land have all, unanimously, been unfair and undermined the system, go ahead, but don't expect me to think your opinion has great weight.

    And you've absolutely no idea how seriously the jury thought about it. Nor is how 'seriously' they thought about it actually relevant. The issue is how well they thought about it.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    I would add that this thread already has a succinct example of just how incapable some people are of thinking through evidence.

    Because some people believe "the victim made it up" and "he's guilty" are the only 2 possible options. And it's that kind of simplistic thinking that can lead to getting it wrong.

    That you believe the victim is giving genuine evidence to the best of their ability is NOT the same thing as believing that the victim has everything right and has an accurate memory. Especially not when there are all these other people, with no reason to lie, giving their own evidence that throws doubt on the accuracy.
  • MaramaMarama Shipmate
    orfeo wrote: »
    And you've absolutely no idea how seriously the jury thought about it.

    Neither have the judges of the High Court
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Marama wrote: »
    orfeo wrote: »
    And you've absolutely no idea how seriously the jury thought about it.

    Neither have the judges of the High Court

    *cough*
    Nor is how 'seriously' they thought about it actually relevant. The issue is how well they thought about it
    *cough*
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    Ah the joys of selective quoting. Or, how to spot a tree you really like and ignore the woods around it.
  • Barnabas62Barnabas62 Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
    edited April 2020
    My elder son (the criminal lawyer and part time district judge) has had a look at this and thinks the High Court came to a good conclusion as a matter of law. He says that does not resolve in his mind the question of whether Cardinal Pell behaved improperly, simply that on the basis of the evidence it was not safe to confirm that he had.

    I don;t think it is safe to jump to the conclusion that the decision makes liars out of those who testified against him. Simply that the defence presented against that testimony threw some doubt about it. Weighing testimony is not a binary process. I've sat on a jury which considered whether a mother had abused her children. In the end we brought in a verdict of guilty but not before many hours of discussion and disagreement.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    Barnabas62 - well said.
  • BroJamesBroJames Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host
    Marama wrote: »
    Are you seriously suggesting that you have to read 50 high court judgements to have an opinion on a legal matter? <snip>

    I assume you have read the High Court judgment in the Pell case.

    I think it would really be worthwhile for you to read the High Court judgment which @orfeo linked to in the Fennel case. First it shows that it is not novel for the High Court to overturn a jury verdict even without additional evidence being brought, though it’s not common. Secondly, IMO, it shows that juries can get it wrong.
  • Blessed be Dan Andrews (as quoted above @SimonToad) for his affirmation of those who have suffered. May his words bring peace and soothing balm.
  • rhubarbrhubarb Shipmate
    I was seriously concerned at the time of Pell's initial trial that it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial because the media had already decided on his guilt and had said so to the Australian public. It was therefore unlikely that an unbiased jury would be found. It would have been advantageous to have a trial before the judiciary and not use a jury. The situation we all now face of intensive media scrutiny and social media coverage raise doubts in my mind as to whether we can continue with the traditional jury system in the future.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    BabyWombat wrote: »
    Blessed be Dan Andrews (as quoted above @SimonToad) for his affirmation of those who have suffered. May his words bring peace and soothing balm.

    Agreed. A thoroughly unHellish sentiment, but agreed.

    I wish people (and particularly the media) didn't take single cases and make them symbolic of entire issues.
  • orfeo wrote: »
    The victims made it up.

    That's the verdict.

    Nice.

    No that is NOT the verdict. That is the exact opposite of what is actually said.

    But that's double speak. It's the sort of shit that people say when they want to tell victims to feel differently than they do in such situations. The effect of such a decision to tell victims that they are liars. Ask one. You see, people who have been forced to have sex, well they remember it. And a court doing this, well, WTF. It's the sort of thing that tells others to not bother reporting.

    You also posted this the following, which kind of identifies you as a lawyer, and if you're not, you sure think like one.
    orfeo wrote: »
    I've had disquiet about the conviction ever since it was announced. I've had disquiet about the prosecution ever since details emerged of how the Victorian Police basically set up a Pell taskforce before having specific allegations against him and then went looking for stories about Pell.

    The whole thing's a long, expensive mess. And what has it ended up doing for victims of church abuse? Zilch. The symbolic prize of one of the most senior men in the church did not eventuate.

    But hey, we can blame the judges of the High Court and their fairly uncommon unanimous jointly written 7-0 decision. They must have done something wrong. Not the police, not the prosecutors. Not the jury. THEY all gave us what we wanted, so it must be the judges who got it wrong by being such spoilsports.

    Lawyers think they know shit. And they know shit.
  • Gee DGee D Shipmate
    rhubarb wrote: »
    I was seriously concerned at the time of Pell's initial trial that it was impossible for him to receive a fair trial because the media had already decided on his guilt and had said so to the Australian public. It was therefore unlikely that an unbiased jury would be found. It would have been advantageous to have a trial before the judiciary and not use a jury. The situation we all now face of intensive media scrutiny and social media coverage raise doubts in my mind as to whether we can continue with the traditional jury system in the future.

    I do not know about trial by judge alone in other States, but it is possible in NSW. Garling J has just completed the trial of the man charged with the murders of Mrs Watson (Watson J's wife) and of Opas J. The trial took something like 15 months and something of that length is obviously unsuitable for a jury. For a start, no-one in employment or with young children could serve for that long. Trials by judge alone have been held in other cases but the way the legislation is framed, it's not easy to get the necessary order.

    Most judges I've chatted to about them much prefer having jury trials as do most lawyers. It keeps the general public involved in one of the basic functions of a sovereign government. In many cases it allows for current public thinking to be brought to bear in decision making - that sort of input is valuable in cases involving freedom of speech, expression and gathering. Different ways of looking at evidence are useful also. On the other hand, the system of selecting a jury apparently common in the US has little support. The jurors are selected by random with limited objection possible; having served, jurors vanish back into the community which they have represented.

  • HuiaHuia Shipmate
    GeeD I thought the accused could opt for a judge only trial.

    I need to check, but as I understand it the under the emergency powers currently in NZ there may only be trials without a jury at the moment. If I have that right I find it worrying.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    orfeo wrote: »
    The victims made it up.

    That's the verdict.

    Nice.

    No that is NOT the verdict. That is the exact opposite of what is actually said.

    But that's double speak. It's the sort of shit that people say when they want to tell victims to feel differently than they do in such situations. The effect of such a decision to tell victims that they are liars. Ask one. You see, people who have been forced to have sex, well they remember it.

    Meanwhile, here in the real world where we understand how memory works, we know that this is not actually entirely true.

    People can accidentally conflate separate events. People can misremember times, places (heck, the prosecution's case actually was based on saying the victim's dates were a bit wrong) and even identities.

    People can, when pressed hard enough by well-meaning counsellors, remember entire satanic rituals that never fucking happened. Okay? There are proven cases of this.

    You're actually making entirely the wrong assertion and thus a circular argument. The issue is not whether people who have been forced to have sex remember it. The issue is whether people who HAVEN'T been forced to have sex can 'remember' being forced to have sex. And the answer is provably yes.

    Get it? You're saying "if you're forced to have sex you will inevitably remember", which is entirely the reverse of the question. The actual question is "if someone remembers being forced to have sex, did it inevitably happen the way they remember?"

    I would highly recommend you do some reading about things like the satanic panic or shaken baby syndrome or several other situations where people were convinced about things that just didn't occur, or listen to a number of episodes of the podcast "You're Wrong About" that deal with these issues. It's truly frightening the extent to which people can believe things that objectively cannot have happened, and how they can be persuaded to do so.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    I mean, it's got NOTHING to do with 'lawyers knowing shit', it's to do with psychologists and neuroscientists knowing shit.
  • orfeoorfeo Shipmate
    edited April 2020
    Plus of course @NOprophet_NØprofit there's the massive problem that you are calling the second victim - the one who said nothing ever happened - a liar.

    You can't have it both ways. Because the 2 victims in this story said different things. If you're going to say it's awful to not believe victims' stories, that's a lovely one-way standard you've got, where we must believe someone who says something awful happens but we DON'T accept it when someone denies that something awful happened to them.

    This is exactly the kind of attitude that caused things like the satanic panic and 'repressed memories' emerging. Pressuring kids, however unconsciously, to say yes they were subject to abuse, because if they say no they keep getting asked. You only accept one answer and reject the other.

    So fuck you and your idiotic black-and-white righteousness. You're the kind of person that actually causes sincere but objectively false accusations.
  • Huia wrote: »
    GeeD I thought the accused could opt for a judge only trial.

    I need to check, but as I understand it the under the emergency powers currently in NZ there may only be trials without a jury at the moment. If I have that right I find it worrying.

    This may be something that varies widely by jurisdiction. Generally in Canada for serious offences (maximum sentence 5 years or more) the accused has the option of judge-alone or jury, except for a few offences (including murder) where the Crown can force a jury trial.

    At the beginning of the Covid emergency the Ontario courts cancelled all juries, except for trials that were already underway and even most of those ended up with the judge sending the jury home and declaring a mistrial (there were one or two trials that were nearing completion and the jury agreed to stay on to complete the trial).

    Within days, “no jury trials” became “no trials unless the accused is in custody awaiting trial” and finally no trials at all until at least the beginning of June.

This discussion has been closed.