REGISTER NOW!! Why? Because you can't do much without having been registered!

At the moment you have limited access to view all discussions - and most importantly, you haven't joined our community. What are you waiting for? Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join Join Talking Horses here!

Reply to thread

Message

Yes, the TV cameras probably did not help, but the fact is there is a risk that you could have people on a jury saying these exact same things without the TV cameras, as it was their genuine opinions.

"We should find him not guilty because if he goes to jail it will affect him, but if he goes free it won't affect her", the guy who said that would probably have felt that way regardless of whether he had a camera pointing at him.

This was a genuine jury, not played by actors, and of course having a camera pointed at them might make them take it less seriously but all the same, their views were genuine.

It just brought home to me that there is a risk that someone could go through all this, telling the truth about what happened to them, and they may end up with a prejudiced or less than intelligent jury who are not capable of reasoned discussion.

I fully believe there needs to be some form of "quality control" in the form of appointing professional jurors to do the job rather than random selection.

<blockquote data-quote="purr" data-source="post: 2101130" data-attributes="member: 65195">Yes, the TV cameras probably did not help, but the fact is there is a risk that you could have people on a jury saying these exact same things without the TV cameras, as it was their genuine opinions.&quot;We should find him not guilty because if he goes to jail it will affect him, but if he goes free it won&#039;t affect her&quot;, the guy who said that would probably have felt that way regardless of whether he had a camera pointing at him.This was a genuine jury, not played by actors, and of course having a camera pointed at them might make them take it less seriously but all the same, their views were genuine.It just brought home to me that there is a risk that someone could go through all this, telling the truth about what happened to them, and they may end up with a prejudiced or less than intelligent jury who are not capable of reasoned discussion.I fully believe there needs to be some form of &quot;quality control&quot; in the form of appointing professional jurors to do the job rather than random selection.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="purr, post: 2101130, member: 65195"] Yes, the TV cameras probably did not help, but the fact is there is a risk that you could have people on a jury saying these exact same things without the TV cameras, as it was their genuine opinions. "We should find him not guilty because if he goes to jail it will affect him, but if he goes free it won't affect her", the guy who said that would probably have felt that way regardless of whether he had a camera pointing at him. This was a genuine jury, not played by actors, and of course having a camera pointed at them might make them take it less seriously but all the same, their views were genuine. It just brought home to me that there is a risk that someone could go through all this, telling the truth about what happened to them, and they may end up with a prejudiced or less than intelligent jury who are not capable of reasoned discussion. I fully believe there needs to be some form of "quality control" in the form of appointing professional jurors to do the job rather than random selection. [/QUOTE]

Verification: 5 + 3 = ?