From: Pancho.Jones@protonmail.com 
  
 On 8/20/25 13:05, Mark Goodge wrote: 
 > On Wed, 20 Aug 2025 08:24:29 +0100, Pancho  
 > wrote: 
 > 
 >> There is also another important category, where the defendant doesn't 
 >> know if they are guilty, or not. It is quite often that essential facts 
 >> are undisputed, and it is for a jury to interpret the law. 
 > 
 > That's completely the wrong way round. In a trial, it's the judge's role to 
 > interpret the law, and the jury's role to decide on the facts. 
 > 
  
 It is the jury's duty to decide upon a verdict, based upon their 
 conscience. Now, I understand authoritarian people don't like this, as 
 it undermines their authority. Hence, authoritarian people try to limit 
 the jury system in every way they can. Inventing some nonsense about 
 limiting jury duty to deciding on the facts is part of that. In reality, 
 the single fact the jury decide upon is guilty or not guilty. 
  
  
 >> As I said, I'm pretty sure I would have acquitted her. My politics are 
 >> centrist. I have no sympathy with targeting immigrants. I think there 
 >> are a lot of Reform voters who would have been more sympathetic than me. 
 > 
 > I think Ricky Jones was lucky. A different jury could well have found him 
 > guilty. I think Lucy Connolly was unlucky. A different judge could well 
 have 
 > given her a shorter sentence and suspended it. 
 > 
  
 Yes, trials can be very arbitrary. 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)