Trial thrown out because victim judged too honest to give fair trial - mirror.co.uk
I don't know about this honestly. I kinda like the idea of a step away from 'he said she said' given how unreliable eye witnesses are generally. Sure, a move to a more evidence based system means a greater potential of letting criminals go free as is probably the case here, but on the other hand I as a citizen would gladly risk that in exchange for a lower incidence of the innocent (namely me) being punished.
I mean really, I can see where it wouldn't be fair to let the for exmaple the pope's word to be the only evidence against me. Now I don't know the details of this case, but it seems to me the majority of the outrage is focused solely on the witness testimony being excluded.
Well victim testimony is often excluded for a variety of other reasons. I somewhat like the fact that no attempt to hide his reasoning was made, despite the fact that he surly would know the reaction.
But stil, I don't know if this was the proper case to begin this line of thinking. But then again, if not now, when?
Trial thrown out because victim judged too honest to give fair trial
Denise Dawson, 36 (Pic:SWNS)
A judge sparked fury yesterday after allowing a yob accused of robbery to walk free - because his victim was "too believable".
He decided her identification of Perks was not enough and said he was throwing the case out because it was her word against his - and she was too believable.
I don't know about this honestly. I kinda like the idea of a step away from 'he said she said' given how unreliable eye witnesses are generally. Sure, a move to a more evidence based system means a greater potential of letting criminals go free as is probably the case here, but on the other hand I as a citizen would gladly risk that in exchange for a lower incidence of the innocent (namely me) being punished.
I mean really, I can see where it wouldn't be fair to let the for exmaple the pope's word to be the only evidence against me. Now I don't know the details of this case, but it seems to me the majority of the outrage is focused solely on the witness testimony being excluded.
Well victim testimony is often excluded for a variety of other reasons. I somewhat like the fact that no attempt to hide his reasoning was made, despite the fact that he surly would know the reaction.
But stil, I don't know if this was the proper case to begin this line of thinking. But then again, if not now, when?
No comments:
Post a Comment