How quickly do we judge?

figs86

when i performed jury duty, the case concerned sexual assault of a minor by an older man and we were given a brief introduction (less then 10 mins in court) to the case by the judge

when we returned to the jury room, 5 out of the 6 women sitting on the jury expressed their anger that the man had done such a thing. they were quickly chastised by the other female member of the jury but it surprised and worried me that people sitting on a jury who had just been reminded to be objective and listen to the evidence presented before passing judgement had sentenced the man immediately!!

when i was chatting to a (again female - don't want to come across as sexist but these are just the facts!) solicitor about that case she said ''you'll think this is terrible but as soon as i hear these cases i assume the man is guilty''

she's right i do think it's terrible!! - id hate to be accused of anything!

so do we (men and women) judge people accused of (or simply mildly suspected of) a crime to be guilty as soon as the accusation is made?

and for anyone wondering - the case was thrown out

whiskeyman

figs86 wrote: »

so do we (men and women) judge people accused of (or simply mildly suspected of) a crime to be guilty as soon as the accusation is made?

Because it's usually the case...



BTW - Yore Ma did it!!

Holsten

As soon as I heard about it I assumed it was the husband.

Look at all the facts and most people would come to that conclusion.

Insect Overlord

I've heard both of my parents, not just my mother, make the same assumption about a number of cases over the past few years. They were pretty much bang on tith their judgements. I don't want to even begin thinking about how that reflects on society in general.

John Mason

My dad's cousin was murdered by an intruder in her home. everyone assumed it was the husband. which is wasnt but that poor man, not only did he come home to find his wife stabbed to death but also he had to listen to how he done it, he was intergated by the Gardai, slatted in the papers and on the street.

can you imagine how that made not only him feel but both families.

i will never just assume it is the husband.

Robbo

It was some Puerta Rican guy.

SoWatchaWant

Innocent till proven. No offence to your mother but I hate speculation, I try to keep out of it.

AckwelFoley

Id say it was 'the professor in the courtyard with the brick'

Smart Bug

I'm pretty sure it was a guy with a prosthetic arm...

pink fluffy bunny

pink fluffy bunny wrote: »

My dad's cousin was murdered by an intruder in her home. everyone assumed it was the husband. which is wasnt but that poor man, not only did he come home to find his wife stabbed to death but also he had to listen to how he done it, he was intergated by the Gardai, slatted in the papers and on the street.

can you imagine how that made not only him feel but both families.

i will never just assume it is the husband.

Jesus, poor fella.

Really comes down to the amount of times it has been the husband though, the Gardai generally always check under that rock first & with people being emotional etc they just jump to the first conclusion for closure.

FlutterinBantam

I'd say this thread should be locked until the case is solved.

Swords driver

Robbo wrote: »

It was some Puerta Rican guy.

What is this about.

In case's like this the husband will always be a suspect, and will be the first to be questioned. As painful and unfeeling as this appears the fact is that domestic violence is the most common cause of female murders in Ireland.

Since the beginning of 1996, 134 women have been murdered in Ireland. Of those 84 were killed in their own homes. Of the cases which have been resolved, in just under half (49% of the cases, the murder was committed by a partner or ex-partner.

Source- http://www.womensaid.ie/pages/domestic/STATS.HTM

stovelid

figs86 wrote: »

How quickl...

This is obviously an attempt to cover your tracks.

Dragan

Well statistically you are far more likely to be killed by someone you know that someone you don't. And a very higher percentage of such cases end up with it being partner killing partner.

The only way to stay safe is to kill everyone you know before they can get you.

Insect Overlord

Swords driver wrote: »

What is this about.

"Some Puerta Rican guy" was blamed for numerous crimes in an episode of South Park

Ace2007

considering the way the gardai are talkin about the case more than likely it was the husband -

Swords driver

FlutterinBantam wrote: »

I'd say this thread should be locked until the case is solved.

I have to agree, the families pain must be unimaginable and I'm sure they do not need or appreciate the type of speculation that this thread will attract. Let us hope that the culprit is quickly apprehended and given the punishment deserved.

Latchy

Many people will have being accused and charged with something only to be found not guilty .But the fallout afterwards of being accused in the first place ie, no smoke without fire will have damaged the individuals. I think when somebody has commited a murder ( OJ simson ) and gets away with it then that makes the blood boil .Also there was the case a few years ago of the schoolgirl murdered by her stepfather ( forget her name ) .It was very similar to OJ's case but he to got off to, yet many ( including I) still think him guilty ,if only on the evidence presented in court.

figs86

okay looks like about 80% of people missed the point of the thread!

wasnt asking ''do we assume husbands killed the wife if a wife is murdered''?

i was wondering if, in general, people assume someone accused or suspected of a crime is guilty?

thanks to those who actually read the original post properly!

MagicMarker

To be fair, the husband is likely to be the prime suspect right now.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

...one-armed man....?

As regards the OP: sometimes you wonder why they bother with trials and juries.

here.from.day.1

figs86 wrote: »

when i performed jury duty, the case concerned sexual assault of a minor by an older man and we were given a brief introduction (less then 10 mins in court) to the case by the judge

when we returned to the jury room, 5 out of the 6 women sitting on the jury expressed their anger that the man had done such a thing. they were quickly chastised by the other female member of the jury but it surprised and worried me that people sitting on a jury who had just been reminded to be objective and listen to the evidence presented before passing judgement had sentenced the man immediately!!

when i was chatting to a (again female - don't want to come across as sexist but these are just the facts!) solicitor about that case she said ''you'll think this is terrible but as soon as i hear these cases i assume the man is guilty''

she's right i do think it's terrible!! - id hate to be accused of anything!

so do we (men and women) judge people accused of (or simply mildly suspected of) a crime to be guilty as soon as the accusation is made?

and for anyone wondering - the case was thrown out

When I was doing Jury Duty there was a similar case, so when the names were being called for the jury, the defence vetoed almost any women that were called to try and avoid any prejudgement I guess.

Smart Bug

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

...one-armed man....?

I got dibs on the obscure Fugitive reference.

AckwelFoley

Smart Bug wrote: »

I got dibs on the obscure Fugitive reference.

I thought it was rather obvious

Smart Bug

Smart Bug wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it was a guy with a prosthetic arm...

This one? Obscure and crap.

ncmc

Figs, what was said during the first ten minute introduction? I think it's a travesty that nearly half the jury had made up their minds before hearing a shread of evidence. I would presume though that as they heard the actual evidence, they were more open minded? It always drives me mad when I hear at the end of trials that the judge recommended the jury to come back with a certain result. Does that just not negate the whole purpose of the jury?

InkSlinger67

I think people do judge too quickly on such important decisions but unfortunately this is a symptom of the society we live. That or they just can't be persuaded to change their opinion.



On the joke side of things, I reckon it was the third person the police spoke to - I've watched enough Law & Order to know that it is ALWAYS the third person Briscoe & Greene talk to that actually did the crime! FACT!

boring_job_guy

I'd take the assumtion that in most date-rape cases the man is innocent, because we all know the prejudice works the other way in most cases.


although i read that women on the jury in such cases are even more biased towards the man aswell so i guess any woman who genuinely gets date raped is screwed (pardon the pun).

daveharnett

ncmc wrote: »

When I hear at the end of trials that the judge recommended the jury to come back with a certain result. Does that just not negate the whole purpose of the jury?

I wouldn't think so. If I were to recommend that you jump in the liffey, would you?

OP, I would assume that most people who go before the courts charged with serious crimes are guilty - the DPP does not bring cases to trial for the fun of it. That said, if I was given the responsibility of deciding somebody's innocence or guilt, I'd like to think that I could put that to one side.

Dragan

ncmc wrote: »

Figs, what was said during the first ten minute introduction? I think it's a travesty that nearly half the jury had made up their minds before hearing a shread of evidence. I would presume though that as they heard the actual evidence, they were more open minded? It always drives me mad when I hear at the end of trials that the judge recommended the jury to come back with a certain result. Does that just not negate the whole purpose of the jury?

Not at all. It is also the job of a Judge to not just hear the case, but also to guide the jury in their duties. Often times if evidence , testimony etc is a little unclear the Judge will offer advice to the jury.

I think!

shane86

Ace2007 wrote: »

considering the way the gardai are talkin about the case more than likely it was the husband -

:rolleyes:

My mother said the same thing. 10 mins later we are watching sky news and it is re showing footage from when the kid was shot in Liverpool, showing the forensics lads on their hands and knees combing the ground for miniscule evidence and she comes out with

"ah now thats a bit much, do they really need to be on their hands and knees, sure yid see anythin important standing up" The only time I have ever seen a breakthrough established by Mr Stand Up is in some iffy 80s films where the detective arrives at the murder scene a half hour later and somehow singles out a vital clue on the ground that the high tech forensics guys completely missed. You have to wonder how many calls the cops got from oul ones after Joe O Reillys appearance on the late late along the lines of "I think he did it, did ya see te way he acted like?!!?"

Thank god we arent sent for trial infront of a jury comprised of a representative group of yore peers ma`s, fair and balanced wouldnt get a chance.

daveharnett

boring_job_guy wrote: »

I'd take the assumtion that in most date-rape cases the man is innocent, because we all know the prejudice works the other way in most cases.


although i read that women on the jury in such cases are even more biased towards the man aswell so i guess any woman who genuinely gets date raped is screwed (pardon the pun).

2% is the only serious claim I found in a three minute google search (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html). The idea that MOST cases are false strikes me as incredible.

They are. According to these (not exactly impartial to be fair) US figures, 6% of rapes result in time being served. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)

Berty

Is there any smoke without fire?

boring_job_guy

daveharnett wrote: »

2% is the only serious claim I found in a three minute google search (http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/crimprof_blog/2004/12/2_false_rape_st.html). The idea that MOST cases are false strikes me as incredible.

They are. According to these (not exactly impartial to be fair) US figures, 6% of rapes result in time being served. (http://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates)

exactly. I'm completely in the wrong. but everyone has a bit of bias in them, so it's not just me. My emotions would incline me to think the guy is innocent. It's not based on actual statistics.

It's the fact that a woman could destroy a guys life by asking him to have sex with her and then cry rape and get him locked up. tbh,this scares me. So much so that unless it's blatantly obvious i'd say the guy is innocent just to be safe.

I'm gonna be shunned for saying this, but I'd rather be date raped (no weridness just normal sex ala mark getting raped in peep show) than spend years in jail.

SeekUp

InkSlinger67 wrote: »

I reckon it was the third person the police spoke to - I've watched enough Law & Order to know that it is ALWAYS the third person Briscoe & Greene talk to that actually did the crime! FACT!

Not true!!! These days, sometimes the detectives will go to someone first, and then that person appears all kinds of innocent, and they move on to other suspects, and then the medical examiner finds something shocking about a piece of evidence that was initially overlooked/thought to be something else, and then that information leads them back to someone they'd already spoken with!!

18 years, still goin' strong.

ncmc

I wouldn't think so. If I were to recommend that you jump in the liffey, would you?

I think this is a really ridiculous comparison. If you were to recommend that I jump in the Liffey then no, I would not do it because I know I would die (or at least get a bit damp):rolleyes:.

However, if a judge who has lets say 40 years experience recommends that I find somebody guilty of manslaughter rather than murder, then that is bound to affect my judgement as I would be inclined to defer to his 40 years of experience.

I'm not saying that what the judge may recommend is wrong, but it does slightly make a joke out of the whole jury process.

SeekUp

boring_job_guy wrote: »

I'm gonna be shunned for saying this, but I'd rather be date raped (no weridness just normal sex ala mark getting raped in peep show) than spend years in jail.

Well . . . hmmm. That's kind of like saying you'd rather "just" be raped than be raped in jail (because that's a given). Sh*tty choices, tbh.

bealbocht

I was wandering in and out of cases as a spectator in the 4 courts a few years back (no really, all my cases were in Brusnswick st)

And it is very hard not to immediately think the person in the "dock" is guilty.
(as it turned out in all the cases I saw, they were)
But the effect is so strong, that I coined the phrase , which actually backs up the op, (but dosent really help) .. "the guilty accused person"

with regard to the recent murder in Howth..

" a guy with a balaclava was seen leaving the scene... yeah yeah, suppose he was a purto rican ninja.."

useful_contacts

Robbo wrote: »

It was some Puerta Rican guy.

bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha:D:D:D:D

LouOB

bealbocht wrote: »

with regard to the recent murder in Howth..

" a guy with a balaclava was seen leaving the scene... yeah yeah, suppose he was a purto rican ninja.."

if the dog was behind the guy with its lead then deffo husband is guilty

2cents - she was having affair or he was having affair

yes we judge quickly and i think we should trust our instinicts more