-
Don't you think that guardian articles saying that alludes to them basically being biased in the manner you describe won't reinforce that such rhetoric as "The war on motorists"?
Extreme opinions on either side of the debate will always polarize it, when in reality I think that most people are decent people and will make the right decision given the right facts. I suspect the low percentages of convictions is because there "must be no reasonable doubt".
cookiesdonniedarko-
Extreme opinions on either side of the debate will always polarize it, when in reality I think that most people are decent people and will make the right decision given the right facts. I suspect the low percentages of convictions is because there "must be no reasonable doubt".
What extreme opinion are you talking about? The problem is that juries a repeatedly returning verdicts that fly in the face of the law because the (i) the law does not make appropriate punishments available and so, (ii) the jury sympathises with the defendent, despite it being obvious that they have done something wrong. Essentially we are seeing Jury Nullification on a massive scale, whereby "a jury nullifies by acquitting a defendant, even though the members of the jury may believe that the defendant did the illegal act, yet they don't believe he or she should be punished for it." This is partly because the jury sympathises with the driver but also because they treat the trial as a test of the driver's character. The logic goes something like:
- The accused was doing something that I, myself, do i.e. speeding
- I'm not a bad guy
- Therefore the accused probably isn't a bad guy
- Therefore he probably didn't mean to hurt anyone
- Therefore he shouldn't be punished for being unlucky
The problem (in addition to my earlier points on our failure to reason soundly with regard to probability, which you didn't reply to) is that this fundamentally isn't an issue of character; it's an issue of competence. The driver has shown themselves to be incompetent and shoudl be banned from driving for a substantial period even if it does cause them massive hardship, because their hardship is less important than the safety of others.
This is an excellent explanation of the issue from Beyond the Kerb.
- The accused was doing something that I, myself, do i.e. speeding
-
in reply to @MultiGrooves
Don't you think that guardian articles saying that alludes to them basically being biased in the manner you describe won't reinforce that such rhetoric as "The war on motorists"?>
Just take a look at some the outcomes: Driving whilst banned, under the influence, not indicating or doing so in the wrong way leading to death and much worse. If you don't feel a pain in your heart at these ridiculous verdicts then you're beyond talking to. If your logic doesn't tell you something is systematically wrong, again this is a waste of time.
ffm
MultiGrooves
IF driving is normalised to the majority of them what kind of bias do you expect to see? When media outlets constantly dropping the moronic "WAR ON MOTORISTS" headlines once every 3/4 months, you think this doesn't affect jurors? Even if they themselves don't drive, they'll have people close to them that do drive. How many understand that their driving habit is is not covered by V.E.D (just wait for the puzzled faces..."It's road tax!"). How many understand they're being subsidised by everyone else?