Off to a good start then. I'm not sure I would rank Stan Collymore as one of the great thinkers of the 21-st century, but never mind. Perhaps the point was to get non-qualified people because that is how real juries are also selected.Originally Posted by median
In a purely logical sense, yes. However it casts doubt on the honesty of the plaintiff, which from a rational (not purely logical) point of view is cause to treat the rest of the accusation with caution.Firstly there was a case when the plaintiff was found to be lying. Several jurors found this enough to doubt the whole accusation but actually this is a composition error. It does not follow that a lie in one area leads to a lie in all areas.
That's the problem. Either you have a situation where criminals are not brought to justice, or you have innocent people convicted on nothing more than a malicious accusation. I suspect one's preference is correlated quite strongly with gender.Interestingly, whilst I recognise that the burden of proof falls very much in the domain of the accuser, I cannot help thinking that the odds can be in many cases stacked against supposed victims.