NRL Players and family members in hot water

[OXY-351]

What I don't understand is the count they found him not guilty on related to the butt sex without consent. He even stated himself that it was "accidental" and he apologised for it. So it doesn't sound like she consented. I also don't understand how you find him not guilty of that, but then can't decide if all the other acts were consensual or not.

 

[Jedhead]

Jury trials suck.

Why?

 

[broncos4life]

Why?

Because juries are idiots. I’m not trying to be harsh but the problem with juries is 2 fold.

1. Getting 12 people to agree on something is hard at the best of times. Add to that that they are usually very diverse so come with their own pre-conceived views and biases.

2. Juries are average people being asked to make decisions on very complex legal situations and comprehend legal terms.

 

[Dash]

Jack de Belin NOT GUILTY of raping a woman in Wollongong.

Jury unable to reach a unanimous verdict on the remaining 5 charges and were discharged.

de Belin free to return to the NRL as soon as this weekend in Magic Round.

He's not guilty of the anal rape charge only. The rest are still up in the air, for now.

 

[Jedhead]

Because juries are idiots. I’m not trying to be harsh but the problem with juries is 2 fold.

1. Getting 12 people to agree on something is hard at the best of times. Add to that that they are usually very diverse so come with their own pre-conceived views and biases.

2. Juries are average people being asked to make decisions on very complex legal situations and comprehend legal terms.

Isn't it he job of the prosecuting and defence lawyers respectively to explain those complex matters to 12 ordinary folk? I'd rather risk staking my innocence on 12 folk from everyday walks of life than some judge with a privileged upbringing and inherent preconceived idea of morality.

 

[Unbreakable]

He's not guilty of the anal rape charge only. The rest are still up in the air, for now.

How is he free to play with 5 outstanding charges still? He should still fall under the sit down policy?

Yeah you can blame the reporter for that, she said it opened the door for an immediate NRL return, but that's not true.

The prosecution has a few weeks to decide if they want to try again, but there's virtually zero precedent for a 3rd trial with no new additional evidence. So, he will likely be free to play in about a month.

 

[Galah]

Isn't it he job of the prosecuting and defence lawyers respectively to explain those complex matters to 12 ordinary folk? I'd rather risk staking my innocence on 12 folk from everyday walks of life than some judge with a privileged upbringing and inherent preconceived idea of morality.

Or a judge with an axe to grind.

 

[broncos4life]

Isn't it he job of the prosecuting and defence lawyers respectively to explain those complex matters to 12 ordinary folk? I'd rather risk staking my innocence on 12 folk from everyday walks of life than some judge with a privileged upbringing and inherent preconceived idea of morality.

Of course, that is kind of my point. You have a better chance of getting off your charge with a jury than a judge.

 

[Jedhead]

Of course, that is kind of my point. You have a better chance of getting off your charge with a jury than a judge.

So I'm now wondering why did you answer my question to @Jason Simmons ? Is he of the same mind then?

 

[tommy]

Of course, that is kind of my point. You have a better chance of getting off your charge with a jury than a judge.

Not necessarily a bad thing either.

 

[broncos4life]

So I'm now wondering why did you answer my question to @Jason Simmons ? Is he of the same mind then?

I answered a question you posted on a public thread of the forum.

 

[Fernando]

Because juries are idiots. I’m not trying to be harsh but the problem with juries is 2 fold.

1. Getting 12 people to agree on something is hard at the best of times. Add to that that they are usually very diverse so come with their own pre-conceived views and biases.

2. Juries are average people being asked to make decisions on very complex legal situations and comprehend legal terms.

Neither of those points is a problem though

 

[Jason Simmons]

Why?

Law has become so complex that even properly directed juries are regularly bamboozled by all the legal BS. You have lay people trying to comprehend extremely convoluted and complex law positions and you end up with situations like this.

On top of which you have to convince all 12 our of 12 jury members (in Qld) and all it takes is one juror with a specific motivation, ie: Sir Joh’s trial (the Young Nationals member wouldn’t have found Joh guilty if Joh had stood up in court and said yes I did it…) and once found not guilty they can (mostly) never be tried again.

It’s a joke.

 

[Jedhead]

Law has become so complex that even properly directed juries are regularly bamboozled by all the legal BS. You have lay people trying to comprehend extremely convoluted and complex law positions and you end up with situations like this.

On top of which you have to convince all 12 our of 12 jury members (in Qld) and all it takes is one juror with a specific motivation, ie: Sir Joh’s trial (the Young Nationals member wouldn’t have found Joh guilty if Joh had stood up in court and said yes I did it…) and once found not guilty they can (mostly) never be tried again.

It’s a joke.

I agree the whole law system is a joke. One law for the rich and another for the poor.

 

[Huge]

I agree the whole law system is a joke. One law for the rich and another for the poor.

Excellent! Rich people are usually much better quality.

Joking

 

[ivanhungryjak]

 

[Xzei]

When it rains it pours for some people

 

[Mr Fourex]

Hopoate gene.......chronic fuckheadedness.