Tinami Amori
Well-Known Member
- Messages
- 20,156
You took AxelAnnie's post out of context, and/or misunderstood what she said IN REPLY to previously made comments.Reading through this thread a second time today, this struck me as a really odd comment.
How can any evolved legal system not aspire to advance social justice? Social justice is an integral element of a justice system.
Here is her post:
It means that if members of the jury do not find sufficient evidence to convict, they should not render a guilty verdict just to be "politically correct" just for sake of supporting the "me too" movement (aka implement "social justice" because now there is such trend). Naturally the legal procedure/trial itself is the epitome of social justice (in general sense), and AxelAnnie did not mean it "general sense" but in terms of "political correctness".Social justice has no place in a jury room. After hearing the facts presented, the jury...collectively could neither agree to convict or acquit. Period
At the end of the day the evidence wss not strong enough for such conviction.
The cases that are put on such complicated trials are not for violent or obvious rape cases, but for ones dealing with "date", "friends", "business associates" or "meeting" setting, when one side argues it was "consensual" (and discussing what one perceives as "consensual" is a discussion in itself), and i am glad that such cases go to trial and all aspects are covered. if anything, it teaches people what to do, not to do, and what can cause problems.This.
Rape victims were traditionally put on trial themselves.
The trend when all it takes for a woman is to accuse a man and he is automatically guilty is not good either. Jury of 12 people, so far, is the best method found. It may not be perfect, but a better one has not yet been found. Now that we have smart-phones which dance, sing, cook dinners, record every breath and eye-wink, such cases will be easier to judge.
Last edited: