British Justice

[Nikk]

Re: Re: Re: British Justice

They've updated their story, so it reads slightly differently. However following this link:

http://www.appealpanel.org/press.html


Remember it is not up to the defendant to prove he didn't commit the crime, it is up to the prosecution to prove he did. Therefore whether or not he can remember if he was there is irrelevant. If the prosecution couldn't even prove he was there when the crime was meant to have been committed, why did his legal team not destroy the case on this basis alone?

Or, if his defence team did raise it at the trial, what on earth possessed the jury to convict?

Its like convicting someone of murder when you there is no proof he was present when the person was killed.

Erm....of course the burden of proof is on the prosecution. A basic requirement in this case was to show the accused was employed in the care home at the time of the alleged offences. If the police make this claim and the accused accepts that he was indeed at the home at the time no further evidence is needed re that point.

From the report you mentioned it does seem that the police screwed up.

What really worries me is initiating a prosecution for a decades old alleged offence without any evidence other than an accusation or group of accusations, especially where "compensation" for the accusers might be in prospect.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British Justice

In both cases most people complaining of these verdicts are basing opinion on the media's presentation of the case, which can be quite distorted. The "McDonald's Coffee Case" which has been discussed several times on this forum is a good example. The media tersely described it as "woman gets millions for spilling hot coffee on herself." In reality, there was much more to it, third degree burns requiring surgery and repeated warnings to McDonalds of the dangers of their policy.

You messed up here.

Repeated warnings and complaints, yes, those should have been taken into account in determining liability.

Third degree burns requiring surgery, no. That should be taken into account when determining the amount of the award, but it should have nothing to do with whether McDonalds was negligent and therefore liable.

The severity of the injury does not increase the probability of negligence any more than the heinousness of the crime increases the probability that the suspect did it.

This is why people hate lawyers. Although I personally don't; I think that without lawyers there would be no justice at all, which is worse at least than a nonzero amount of justice, however small.

 

[waitew]

I highly doubt 3rd degree burns could be caused by a liquid that could be no hotter than 212F & would have to fallen (thus cooling somewhat) before it landed in the woman's lap.I'll look it up,but I think it's an intentional exageration.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British Justice

You messed up here.

Repeated warnings and complaints, yes, those should have been taken into account in determining liability.

Third degree burns requiring surgery, no. That should be taken into account when determining the amount of the award, but it should have nothing to do with whether McDonalds was negligent and therefore liable.

The severity of the injury does not increase the probability of negligence any more than the heinousness of the crime increases the probability that the suspect did it.

This is why people hate lawyers. Although I personally don't; I think that without lawyers there would be no justice at all, which is worse at least than a nonzero amount of justice, however small.

You didn't read what I said very closely. I said the case was described as "woman gets millions for spilling hot coffee on herself" and noted the severity of the burns and the repeated warnings as extra information that maybe makes the verdict more reasonable.

A jury verdict in a civil case concerns both damages and liability, not just liability. While logically seperate issues, they are part of a single verdict, often (but not always) given at one time. In fact, the main outrage over the verdict was regarding the amount of damages. Thus the note on the severity of the burns.

You seem to assume for some reason that I am commenting solely on liability, and this assumption is both unfounded and incorrect. It is clear from the sentence itself ("millions") that alleged excessive damages are part of the idea being expressed.

Plus, maybe if you actually read the whole post you are making a fuss over you may have caught this sentence:

Prosecutors usually get away with focusing on nothing but the harm to the victim and the lack of remorse by the accused, factors that can inflame a jury, and that are completely irrelevant to the question of guilt.

Being a defense attorney I am quite aware of the logical division between the idea of "degree of harm" and the question of guilt, and a significant part of the post was about that very fact, and the problem that courts are lax in drawing the line.

 

[Suddenly]

I highly doubt 3rd degree burns could be caused by a liquid that could be no hotter than 212F & would have to fallen (thus cooling somewhat) before it landed in the woman's lap.I'll look it up,but I think it's an intentional exageration.

O.K. I'll look up my "intentional exageration" for you....

The sweatpants Liebeck was wearing absorbed the coffee and held it next to her skin. A vascular surgeon determined that Liebeck suffered full thickness burns (or third-degree burns) over 6 percent of her body, including her inner thighs, perineum, buttocks, and genital and groin areas. She was hospitalized for eight days, during which time she underwent skin grafting. Liebeck, who also underwent debridement treatments, sought to settle her claim for $20,000, but McDonalds
refused.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Stella Liebeck, 79 years old, was sitting in the passenger seat of her grandson’s car having purchased a cup of McDonald’s coffee. After the car stopped, she tried to hold the cup securely between her knees while removing the lid. However, the cup tipped over, pouring scalding hot coffee onto her. She received third-degree burns over 16 percent of her body, necessitating hospitalization for eight days, whirlpool treatment for debridement of her wounds, skin grafting, scarring, and disability for more than two years.

http://www.centerjd.org/free/mythbusters-free/MB_mcdonalds.htm

. For home use, coffee is generally brewed at 135 to 140 degrees. If spilled on skin, any beverage heated to between 180 and 190 degrees will cause third-degree burns in two to seven seconds.

http://www.canf.bc.ca/briefs/mcdonalds.html


These are the links I found typing "McDonalds coffee case" and "third degree burns coffee" into google.

In fact, just in case you can't use google, here is a link to the first search I mention:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=McDonalds+Coffee+case

 

[Cleopatra]

I guess that it's inevitable not to refer to personal experiences.

In Greece the system is mixed. We have the jury and three professional judges including the president. In 7 to 10 cases I have worked in the verdict of the jury differs from the verdict of the judges. This telle me a lot. I dare not to think what would happen if we had an elected DA here...

Nikk
I don't need to have statistics about the composition of the juries to have an opinion about them. I know the way they are chosen and I live in the same society with them and I know very well the level of education of the average Greek, I know that 8/10 watch reality shows and they get informed only by the 8 o clock news, they vote for the socialist party but they are extremely religious, they are xenophobic and disoriented.

This average Greek zero when it steps on the bench of the juror believes that it becomes something important and it's ready to comply with the opinion of the general public in the specific case as it is presented by the 8 o clock news. It becomes thirsty for dirty gossips about the people involved "in order to get a picture about the morality of the people in question" and at the end it exhausts its severity as if the accused lives in a different society and he is not like it. I think that once somebody steps on the bench of the juror thinks that he has the opportunity to lay above the others.

So, my idea is that on the one hand it's normal for the juries to reflect the society but on the other hand the lives of people are too important to leave them on the hands of juries. I prefer the professional judges in crimes and the juries in simple cases " Who stole the goat of Mr. X" These are cases the juries should judge and not serious cases when serious convinctions are involved.

Also, I place a lot of responsibility on lawyers. I think that the burden of a fair trial falls on the shoulders of the lawyers that are involved. They have the obligation to work hard for a fair trial and it's their job to secure at least the protection of their clients.

 

[Nikk]

o think what would happen if we had an elected DA here...

Nikk
I don't need to have statistics about the composition of the juries to have an opinion about them. I know the way they are chosen and I live in the same society with them and I know very well the level of education of the average Greek, I know that 8/10 watch reality shows and they get informed only by the 8 o clock news, they vote for the socialist party but they are extremely religious, they are xenophobic and disoriented.

/snip/

So, my idea is that on the one hand it's normal for the juries to reflect the society but on the other hand the lives of people are too important to leave them on the hands of juries. I prefer the professional judges in crimes and the juries in simple cases " Who stole the goat of Mr. X" These are cases the juries should judge and not serious cases when serious convinctions are involved.

In England 90% of criminal cases are decided by panels of 3 magistrates. They are local people, non lawyers, receiving only their expenses who sit without a jury. They do however have restricted sentencing powers - 12 months is usually the max.

It's the more serious cases you are talking about of course and this is where juries are used to decide on guilt or innocence. This is where I disagree with you and think that juries are valuable. In the most emotive cases a jury is probably likely to err on the side of conviction rather than aquittal. They do not however decide on the sentence (life is mandatory for murder but it's not that simple ). Thus the judge can impose an appropiate sentence including a suspended one ( sentence to take effect if another crime is committed ) and effectively ignore the jury's decision if it seems unreasonable. Is it the same in Greece or do you have more mandatory sentences than we do?

I really feel that where the liberty of the individual is involved it is not acceptable to have the entire process left in the hands of employees of the state. That is not to say that I cannot think of plenty of ways of improving the english jury system.

My only recent awareness of the Greek legal system is that it succeeded in convicting a group of harmless english plane spotters of spying. OK they won the appeal, but still, not impressed.

 

[Cleopatra]

In criminal cases there is no question of suspended sentences. The jury first decides whether the accused is guilty or not and with a second verdict it approves or rejects the sentence that is proposed from the judges. In most cases the proposal of the bench is rejected and they decide for more severe sentences. The verdict of the jury cannot be ignored.

I understand the importance of the common sense that the juries provide in simple cases but they have continuously proven unable to evaluate testimonies and evidence in more serious cases. Also they are easily influenced by the media and the social profile of the accused, very often by its lawyer too.

In this very forum somebody posted once that a neighbour of his or hers voted against the accused because his lawyer seemed expensive, therefore he must have been guilty to need an expensive lawyer.

This anecdote sounded very familiar to me.

I understand the role of the jury and I know very well the historical context that dictated its necessity. It seems to me to be an outdated constitution though.

As for the British tourists I was surprized how they have never heard in their village that they cannot take pictures of a military airport.

 

[epepke]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British Justice

A jury verdict in a civil case concerns both damages and liability, not just liability. While logically seperate issues, they are part of a single verdict, often (but not always) given at one time. In fact, the main outrage over the verdict was regarding the amount of damages. Thus the note on the severity of the burns.

You seem to assume for some reason that I am commenting solely on liability, and this assumption is both unfounded and incorrect.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. I am assuming that you are not commenting solely on liability but that you are blending the two issues, which you have admitted to doing on the grounds that they are a single verdict.

I am pointing this out because most of the people I have heard commenting on this issue are commenting on the issue of liability, and if the award were $80,000, they would have made the same comments.

It is clear from the sentence itself ("millions") that alleged excessive damages are part of the idea being expressed.

Sez you. My experience with people who question the verdict differs.

Plus, maybe if you actually read the whole post you are making a fuss over you may have caught this sentence:

Being a defense attorney I am quite aware of the logical division between the idea of "degree of harm" and the question of guilt, and a significant part of the post was about that very fact, and the problem that courts are lax in drawing the line.

This is a fine statement, and I agree with it. I was referring to another fine statement, with which I had problems. I presume you are highly skilled in generating a number of fine statements. Given that, I have to guess which fine statement statement represents your view.

 

[Suddenly]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British Justice

Actually, quite the opposite is true. I am assuming that you are not commenting solely on liability but that you are blending the two issues, which you have admitted to doing on the grounds that they are a single verdict.

Ahh. I see where the confusion lies now. Harm is an element in considering liability for negligence, and this case in particular involved such a concept to a larger than normal degree. I will elaborate below.

I am pointing this out because most of the people I have heard commenting on this issue are commenting on the issue of liability, and if the award were $80,000, they would have made the same comments.

That's nice. I however, am not restricting this to your experience. Would they comment if the verdict was for $3.54? The multi-million dollar award is part of the verdict, as damages are part of (with few exceptions) all civil verdicts. So, I am covering both bases. You are assuming damages to be irrelevant to liability, which is also quite wrong in pretty much every way possible.

Sez you. My experience with people who question the verdict differs.

Again, bully for you. The statement you are now referring to is where I state that I am dealing with both issues, both of which are clearly relevant to the verdict. I am laying out exactly what I am talking about, liability and damages. Reflecting that, your claims that I am making some sort of error by discussing damages is off the mark. Doubly so when one considers harm/degree of harm is often directly relevant to the question of liability.

This is a fine statement, and I agree with it. I was referring to another fine statement, with which I had problems. I presume you are highly skilled in generating a number of fine statements. Given that, I have to guess which fine statement statement represents your view.

The first comment is a description of the facts downplayed in the initial coverage the case recieved, while the second is a clearer value statement. Beyond that, there still isn't a contradiction because in this case the severity of the burns are in fact directly relevent to liability.

In tort law (and sometimes criminal law) harm to the victim is in fact relevent to liability, albeit in a limited way. In all negligence cases, damages must be proven. If there is no harm, there is no liability. The idea being that in civil law you can be as stupid as you want to be as long as nobody gets hurt.

This case takes that concept a bit further. The woman expected coffee heated to a usual temperature. If the woman would have recieved only a typical coffee burn, there would have been a consent defense absent evidence of faulty design of the cup, or McDonalds personel actually making her spill the coffee. The whole beef was she was put in a situation with greater potential harm than was bargained for. Then when she spilled it, she was burned to a degree beyond what would be expected, the degree of risk she consented to by buying coffee in the first place.

Thus, degree of harm is relevant to the question of liability, as it is evidence that the risks went beyond those assumed.

In criminal law, the difference between a felony assault and a murder is ... degree of harm to the victim. Not to mention battery cases where issues of consent are involved.

This use of harm and degree of harm is not the problem, rather the times when it is used not to prove the case but inflame the passions of a jury. Perhaps that is where you are confused on this issue.

Perhaps I should have simply pointed out your error in this statement:

Third degree burns requiring surgery, no. That should be taken into account when determining the amount of the award, but it should have nothing to do with whether McDonalds was negligent and therefore liable.

However, I apparently made the mistake of assuming you understood the concept above, that damages are in fact often relevant w/r/t liability, and you were only referring to the misuse of such evidence. That was my mistake.

 

[Mr Manifesto]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: British Justice

Unfunny joke deleted.