Trial and Retribution

The Blog seems to be provoking strong reactions. I received this from a
friend.
Dunno about you..but I think it's brilliant:

"Ah, yes, but you have to remember that the object of the game is not
to uncover whether the defendant is guilty or innocent. That isn't the
point of a trial under the English system. The object is to decide
which side has presented their case better. It is a contest between
two public school boys to present a case neither believes in nor cares
about - except it gives them both lorry-loads of cash.

One juror was thrown off a jury the other year for trying to
investigate the facts of the case himself in his time off. As the
judge told him, it is not a juror's job to investigate the facts; it
is his job to decide on the relative merits of the presentation of the
facts.

If you think the accused is guilty but the prosecution has not proved
it, then you have to vote Not Guilty. if you think the accused is not
guilty, but the defence has not countered the prosecution's arguments,
then you have to vote Guilty.

The police investigate and find the guilty person.

The court prosecutes the person assumed to be guilty but does not
investigate.

The jury decides whether the Prosecution or Defence has presented
their case better, but does not investigate and does not decide on the
facts, only on the facts presented and on the presentation of the
facts.

It's like judging an ice-skating contest - style and content are what
get marked.

At least juries - wrongly - think the system is about delivering
justice; judges know it is about deciding on the legal arguments not
the facts.

****** got out of jury service. From memory, I think she just
screamed obscenities at the judge and that seemed to do the trick."