Stokes Arrested

[Hennybogan]

Yes true, the guy with the bottle needs a few months in the slammer.

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Has anyone suggested that Stokes should sue the bloke he could have killed for breaking his hand?

 

[Adders]

****ing hell.......glad none of you ****s in here are gonna be sitting on the jury. Judge wont know whether to award him the VC or give him life.

I havent seen the vid but how the **** can 100 people see 100 different things?

 

[Lillian Thomson]

****ing hell.......glad none of you ****s in here are gonna be sitting on the jury. Judge wont know whether to award him the VC or give him life.

I havent seen the vid but how the **** can 100 people see 100 different things?

Well, some people are worried about the law of the land and others are more worried about our prospects in the Ashes.

 

[StephenZA]

****ing hell.......glad none of you ****s in here are gonna be sitting on the jury. Judge wont know whether to award him the VC or give him life.

I know some of the lawyers around here don't like it... but it is one of the few good things I like about the SA justice system, that guilt is soley decided by the judge based on the law. No juries and emotions, even if it is for purely practical reasons.

 

[sledger]

The problem with things like this though is that Stokes' guilt hinges on a question of fact (i.e. did he believe he was being threatened?) rather than a question of law. You don't need to be a judge or legal professional (or even academic!) to answer those sorts of questions.

 

[zaremba]

I know some of the lawyers around here don't like it... but it is one of the few good things I like about the SA justice system, that guilt is soley decided by the judge based on the law. No juries and emotions, even if it is for purely practical reasons.

In my criminal defence days I defended people both with judges sitting alone and with juries. I feel there are pluses and minuses to both.

Self-defence cases are ones where a jury can be useful. If you're going to convict someone in circumstances where it appears they might have been acting in self-defence, then it's not a bad idea that the prosecution must first convince a jury of 12 ordinary people (or at least 10 or 11 of them) that what the person did went beyond what was reasonable in the circumstances.

 

[Adders]

The problem with things like this though is that Stokes' guilt hinges on a question of fact (i.e. did he believe he was being threatened?) rather than a question of law. You don't need to be a judge or legal professional (or even academic!) to answer those sorts of questions.

No, you just need to be a bit smart. Judging by some of the comments Ive seen in here there is a good argument to have an intelligence test for jurors.

 

[TestMatch]

Just saw the footage.

Stokes is lucky he didn't kill the guy. That was a brutal and unnecessary bit of slogging once bottle-guy was down.

 

[mr_mister]

Funny when this stuff happens in hockey or rugby we cheer and then sentence the blokes to 5 and 10 minute sentences respectively

 

[StephenZA]

Funny when this stuff happens in hockey or rugby we cheer and then sentence the blokes to 5 and 10 minute sentences respectively

Not in rugby anymore (unsure of hockey) that is a straight red along with probably a couple of match bans. Unless its club rugby... anything goes there.

 

[zaremba]

No, you just need to be a bit smart. Judging by some of the comments Ive seen in here there is a good argument to have an intelligence test for jurors.

12 men and women who are too stupid to get out of doing jury service.

 

[zaremba]

Stokes is reportedly feeling "fragile and devastated".

 

[Lillian Thomson]

He'll probably be banned from all cricket until November the ............... when's the first Test .................. ah 23rd.

 

[Burgey]

Not really. The key issue is whether Stokes believed this guy was a threat. From a legal perspective that is the issue that everything hinges on here.

Do you apply a subjectivd year in this instance?

 

[S.Kennedy]

It is really in Strauss's corner as I cannot see this being any more than a police caution. The powers that be still have the pretense that cricket is a genteel sport and they are trying to make the sport more family orientated, appealing to women and children, so they could throw Stokes to the wolves.

 

[sledger]

It is really in Strauss's corner as I cannot see this being any more than a police caution. The powers that be still have the pretense that cricket is a genteel sport and they are trying to make the sport more family orientated, appealing to women and children, so they could throw Stokes to the wolves.

Are you ****ing kidding?

 

[Starfighter]

This wouldn't be a bad time to ask; how many actual lawyers are there on here? There always seemed to be a few.

 

[sledger]

Do you apply a subjectivd year in this instance?

Do you mean in terms of thinking about whether someone of his age etc. would be likely to react as he did?

If so the answer is no. The question to be asked is effectively "did the defendant themselves in the situation genuinely feel they were threatened?". No considerations about whether someone of a similar age/gender would have reacted in a comparable way enter into it.

 

[sledger]

This wouldn't be a bad time to ask; how many actual lawyers are there on here? There always seemed to be a few.

At least 4-5 that I am aware of. Though I'm not sure if I really count as a real one.