"Innocents Betrayed " by Sandra Lean

[faithlilly]

. It doesn't have to be a unanimous verdict. Majority were convinced beyond reasonable doubt by the crown,  thats what matters in Scottish law therefor your argument is invalid.

My ‘argument’ was that the jury was irretrievably split..the majority verdict proves that. That the minority of jurors who weren’t convinced of Luke’s guilt could have been as high as 7...that is simply logic.

And of course it doesn’t have to be a unanimous verdict but the fact that it wasn’t suggest the Crown’s case was somewhat less than compelling.

[Mrs S]

My ‘argument’ was that the jury was irretrievably split..the majority verdict proves that. That the minority of jurors who weren’t convinced of Luke’s guilt could have been as high as 7...that is simply logic.

And of course it doesn’t have to be a unanimous verdict but the fact that it wasn’t suggest the Crown’s case was somewhat less than compelling.

It also could've been 1 who was in the minority!  Only the jury know that! So the argument is invalid.Clearly the crowns case wasn't somewhat less than compelling or he would've been found not guilty. On other hand if crowns case was as less compelling than you allege, the defense would have no problem convincing the jury he was not guilty or not proven.

[faithlilly]

It also could've been 1 who was in the minority!  Only the jury know that! So the argument is invalid.Clearly the crowns case wasn't somewhat less than compelling or he would've been found not guilty. On other hand if crowns case was as less compelling than you allege, the defense would have no problem convincing the jury he was not guilty or not proven.

The argument, I prefer point, is perfectly valid. If the Crown’s case had been compelling then a unanimous verdict would have been the outcome...it wasn’t.

[Mrs S]

The argument, I prefer point, is perfectly valid. If the Crown’s case had been compelling then a unanimous verdict would have been the outcome...it wasn’t.

I'll repeat. It was compelling enough for a majority verdict. Whatever the ratio.  And compelling enough that defense couldn't convince jury of innocence. By your point people convicted on majority verdict should be freed or is it just relevant in lukes case

[Vertigo Swirl]

It’s a ridiculous argument.  You could say if it was a majority of 11 to 4 then that would be equal to a unanimous verdict delivered by an 11 person jury in England.  The number of jurors who dissented does not give you degrees of guilt or innocence, you either accept the concept of majority verdicts as applied to all cases or you reject them completely, you can’t just accept the ones you agree with and bin off the rest!

[Angelo222]

It’s a ridiculous argument.  You could say if it was a majority of 11 to 4 then that would be equal to a unanimous verdict delivered by an 11 person jury in England.  The number of jurors who dissented does not give you degrees of guilt or innocence, you either accept the concept of majority verdicts as applied to all cases or you reject them completely, you can’t just accept the ones you agree with and bin off the rest!

Majority verdicts make a nonsense of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' requirement. How can any verdict be seen as safe when nearly half the jurors vote not guilty as in a 8/7 or 9/6 decision?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Majority verdicts make a nonsense of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' requirement. How can any verdict be seen as safe when nearly half the jurors vote not guilty as in a 8/7 or 9/6 decision?

Then if that is your view you should consider ALL majority verdicts unsafe and campaign to have them ALL overturned, not pick and choose the ones you think are miscarriages of justice. 

[Angelo222]

Then if that is your view you should consider ALL majority verdicts unsafe and campaign to have them ALL overturned, not pick and choose the ones you think are miscarriages of justice.

Majority verdicts go against the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' prerequisite for a conviction according to law, they are archaic in every sense of the word and should be outlawed in modern-day society.

How can anyone possibly argue that someone is guilty when 7 jurors don't think so?

[mrswah]

Majority verdicts make a nonsense of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' requirement. How can any verdict be seen as safe when nearly half the jurors vote not guilty as in a 8/7 or 9/6 decision?

I agree. It seems ridiculous, IMO.  However,  verdicts where the vast majority of jurors (eg 10 or 11 out of 12) agree, are ok, IMO.  If those were not allowed, some juries would never reach a verdict.

[faithlilly]

Majority verdicts make a nonsense of the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' requirement. How can any verdict be seen as safe when nearly half the jurors vote not guilty as in a 8/7 or 9/6 decision?

Exactly.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Majority verdicts go against the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' prerequisite for a conviction according to law, they are archaic in every sense of the word and should be outlawed in modern-day society.

How can anyone possibly argue that someone is guilty when 7 jurors don't think so?

You therefore MUST be on the side of Luke Mitchell who was clearly not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in your view?

[Angelo222]

You therefore MUST be on the side of Luke Mitchell who was clearly not found guilty beyond reasonable doubt in your view?

By no means. You misunderstand my position.

I disagree with majority verdicts except in the very rare occasions in England, Wales and N Ireland where a judge in his discretion will allow a 11 to 1 verdict.

My position in the Luke Mitchell case is very simple, in my opinion the evidence points to his guilt.

[Vertigo Swirl]

By no means. You misunderstand my position.

I disagree with majority verdicts except in the very rare occasions in England, Wales and N Ireland where a judge in his discretion will allow a 11 to 1 verdict.

My position in the Luke Mitchell case is very simple, in my opinion the evidence points to his guilt.

Your position is entirely contradictory in my opinion.

[Angelo222]

Your position is entirely contradictory in my opinion.

What is contradictory exactly?  I can't be clearer, I disagree with simple majority verdicts and imo Luke Mitchell looks guilty from everything I have seen and read about the case.  Had the police forensics not messed up the site of the murder we might have had a unanimous verdict and avoided all this confusion.

[Vertigo Swirl]

What is contradictory exactly?  I can't be clearer, I disagree with simple majority verdicts and imo Luke Mitchell looks guilty from everything I have seen and read about the case.  Had the police forensics not messed up the site of the murder we might have had a unanimous verdict and avoided all this confusion.

Your position is (IMO) contradictory because, despite your opinion that Luke is guilty, you also do not believe that his guilt been established "beyond all reasonable doubt".  Therefore as there IS doubt about his guilt (certainly as far as the jury was concerned), he should surely, at the very least, be entitled to a re-trial in your view?  If not, why not?  Just because you think he's guilty?