Edward Colston statue and trial by jury
Posted: Thu Jan 06, 2022 10:39 pm
I think it was very interesting that the jury refused to convict the people who pulled down Edward Colston's statue, even though they did it. This has obviously annoyed quite a few people.
Arguably this is just one of the quirks of trial by jury though. I think if you have that system, then it's the jury's right to decide not to convict if they think a conviction would be unreasonable, even if the thing objectively happened. I have previously questioned trial by jury, although not for reasons relating to this.
Taking this to its logical conclusions though, a jury could conceivably acquit someone of a more serious crime, such as a revenge murder, if the initial crime that led to it was deemed egregious enough by the jury. I imagine though that this would be fairly unlikely and the judge would probably be quite strict and specific with them about what they should use a guilty or not guilty verdict for. But ultimately the judge would not be able to stop them.
Arguably this is just one of the quirks of trial by jury though. I think if you have that system, then it's the jury's right to decide not to convict if they think a conviction would be unreasonable, even if the thing objectively happened. I have previously questioned trial by jury, although not for reasons relating to this.
Taking this to its logical conclusions though, a jury could conceivably acquit someone of a more serious crime, such as a revenge murder, if the initial crime that led to it was deemed egregious enough by the jury. I imagine though that this would be fairly unlikely and the judge would probably be quite strict and specific with them about what they should use a guilty or not guilty verdict for. But ultimately the judge would not be able to stop them.