loaf Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Are all these aformentioned cases not held before a jury? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 Yes indeed some were. But when picking your jury, make sure you pick the ones 'who give the sign'. Or simpler still, the ones you may have broken bread with in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 The judge hands out the sentences, even in a jury trial. The jury just determines guilt (or lack of) based on the evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lonan3 Posted July 11, 2005 Share Posted July 11, 2005 I think the report in this week's Examiner puts this into perspective. The guy who attacked someone with an axe had a 'long record of violence' including 'two convictions for grievous bodily harm and ninefor actual bodily harm' as well as having been found trying to intimidate those wh could testify against him. At the risk of repeating myself, I know which of these people I'd prefer to see locked up for a long time! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 A couple of weeks ago a man gets 5 years for the murder of his wife which has left two kids without their mother. He got 5 years for the Manslaughter of his wife, not murder, which is a lesser offence as he was judged to be of diminished responsibility. That was the opinion of the jury and sentencing refects that. I'm sure if he were judged to be guilty of murder then sentence would have been much more harsh. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Stabbing someone 11 odd times isn't murder?! He's already served 1 and a half years of it in custody I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 But when picking your jury, make sure you pick the ones 'who give the sign'. Or simpler still, the ones you may have broken bread with in the past. What absolute rubbish. The jury selection is a very thorough process with both defence and prosecution allowed to object to certain jurors. The Island is small but everything is done to ensure system is as partial as possible - to the point where it seems to get tedious. These sort of frivilous remarks actually detract from valid criticism of the judicial system and sentencing guidelines. On sentencing, there is the right to appeal for both defence and prosecution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stavros Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 The Island is small but everything is done to ensure system is as partial as possible - to the point where it seems to get tedious. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Don't you mean to ensure the system is as impartial as possible? Stav. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speckled Frost Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 Stav, you might just be right there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 But when picking your jury, make sure you pick the ones 'who give the sign'. Or simpler still, the ones you may have broken bread with in the past. What absolute rubbish. The jury selection is a very thorough process with both defence and prosecution allowed to object to certain jurors. The Island is small but everything is done to ensure system is as partial as possible - to the point where it seems to get tedious. These sort of frivilous remarks actually detract from valid criticism of the judicial system and sentencing guidelines. On sentencing, there is the right to appeal for both defence and prosecution. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So you can absolutely confirm to me that in a certain case that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread and may or may not have been discussed on other manx forums in the past, that the judge and the defendant were not in any way linked by a common and secretive club. I hope you can sf, because it will make me sleep better that this Island isn't run by a corrupt old boys network. There are many people on this Island being prodded with the Sh1tty end of the stick by rich and greedy bullies. These bully boys are unfortunately just about everywhere. The Island is small but everything is done to ensure system is as partial as possible . . . . now that quote demonstrates misguided thinking. When membership of all societies and clubs, secretive or otherwise, are declared by ALL concerned including the judiciary, then we might just start getting there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 The difference between manslaughter and murder relates to the mental element of the offence, I think, rather than the physical result (which is homicide, in both cases). Provocation, for instance, can change a "murder" into "manslaughter", as can diminished responsibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ian rush Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 So you can absolutely confirm to me that in a certain case that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread and may or may not have been discussed on other manx forums in the past, that the judge and the defendant were not in any way linked by a common and secretive club. I hope you can sf, because it will make me sleep better that this Island isn't run by a corrupt old boys network. Or, perhaps you'd have the strength of your conviction to a) come and out and name names and clubs or B) tell us precisely what you're talking about in a roundabout know what I mean nudge nudge allegedly apparently kind of way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alias Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 The difference between manslaughter and murder relates to the mental element of the offence, I think, rather than the physical result (which is homicide, in both cases). Provocation, for instance, can change a "murder" into "manslaughter", as can diminished responsibility <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So 3 and a half years or something crazy, and he's back to take custody of a child that's mother he has killed is okay because of diminished responsibility? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 The difference between manslaughter and murder relates to the mental element of the offence, I think, rather than the physical result (which is homicide, in both cases). Provocation, for instance, can change a "murder" into "manslaughter", as can diminished responsibility <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So 3 and a half years or something crazy, and he's back to take custody of a child that's mother he has killed is okay because of diminished responsibility? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I was just pointing out what (technically) makes a homicide a manslaughter rather than a murder, not commenting on the quality of the sentencing. I doubt he will be given custody of the kid though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ans Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 So you can absolutely confirm to me that in a certain case that may or may not have been mentioned in this thread and may or may not have been discussed on other manx forums in the past, that the judge and the defendant were not in any way linked by a common and secretive club. Shut up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Observer Posted July 12, 2005 Share Posted July 12, 2005 * what ^^he said.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.