Nurse arrested for murdering babies

I remember seeing this case and being appalled so now it seems it's taken a much more rather complex turn?

Damn, if she is indeed innocent that really sucks. But i've not seen any of the evidence of course so no idea if she is or not.
 
SpellowHouse said:
I met one. And to make matters worse, we were in a jury. She was adamant the accused was guilty because his eyes were too close together. She absolutely would not change her mind. That's why I would never want to face a jury, there's always the chance you get a wild card.
Click to expand...

Dumb question but is there a reason why jury's are not comprised of medical professionals? While it doesn't necessarily mean the correct verdict will be giving, surely it decreases the chances of ridiculous situations such as the above from occurring.
 
Last edited:
Fire Wizard said:
Dumb question but is there a reason why jury's are not comprised of medical professionals? While it doesn't necessarily mean the correct verdict will be giving, surely it decreases the chances of ridiculous situations such as the above from occurring.
Click to expand...

Given NHS staff shortages I'd rather they were automatically exempt from jury duty ! You also want a range of people to avoid group think.
 
SpellowHouse said:
I met one. And to make matters worse, we were in a jury. She was adamant the accused was guilty because his eyes were too close together. She absolutely would not change her mind. That's why I would never want to face a jury, there's always the chance you get a wild card.
Click to expand...

It would be hard to deny the occasional tie between appearance and criminality as this recent Yorkshire police post asking for help finding these model citizens may show ;)


yorkshire.jpg
 
Fire Wizard said:
Dumb question but is there a reason why jury's are not comprised of medical professionals? While it doesn't necessarily mean the correct verdict will be giving, surely it decreases the chances of ridiculous situations such as the above from occurring.
Click to expand...
It isn't a dumb question at all. Jurys are meant to be a representative of our population. It isn't about being educated, a professional or whatever. It is about being a reasonable representation of the public.
 
Classic Blue Theme said:
It isn't a dumb question at all. Jurys are meant to be a representative of our population. It isn't about being educated, a professional or whatever. It is about being a reasonable representation of the public.
Click to expand...

Is a jury system based on a reasonable representation of the public the best way to carry out a criminal trial? In a lot of aspects of life, you generally want the most qualified people for a given job. The way the jury system is set up currently, it feels like a bit of a free for all. Singling out medical professionals was stupid on my part. What I was trying to say but failing miserably was, in my opinion, in order to be part of a jury, assuming the jury system is the best way forward, individuals should be able to demonstrate a certain degree of intellect.
 
Last edited:
Fire Wizard said:
Is a jury system based on a reasonable representation of the public the best way to carry out a criminal trial? In a lot of aspects of life, you generally want the most qualified people for a given job. The way the jury system is set up currently, it feels like a bit of a free for all. Singling out medical professionals was stupid on my part. What I was trying to say but failing miserably was, in my opinion, in order to be part of a jury, assuming the jury system is the best way forward, individuals should be able to demonstrate a certain degree of intellect.
Click to expand...
Why? The population does not represent the same level of intellect so why is that fairer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom