From: roger@hayter.org 
  
 On 17 Aug 2025 at 11:22:27 BST, "Norman Wells"  wrote: 
  
 > On 17/08/2025 09:10, Pancho wrote: 
 >> On 8/16/25 23:42, Jon Ribbens wrote: 
 > 
 >>> The difference is that one of them pleaded guilty and one of them 
 >>> didn't, and the latter was acquitted by a jury. The legal system 
 >>> doesn't need to "dress up" anything. 
 >> 
 >> That is a difference in the legal system, not the crime itself. In a 
 >> fair system, we would want similar crimes to receive similar sentences. 
 > 
 > With the proviso of course that every crime is different from every 
 > other, even between Connolly and Jones. 
 >> We would especially not want to see huge differences, such as nothing vs 
 >> 3 years. We would want the legal system to be fair, not arbitrary. 
 > 
 > There will always be a difference in the punishments of the guilty and 
 > the innocent though.  That's only fair. 
 > 
 >> There is huge concern about inducements on the accused to plead guilty 
 >> and forgo the right to a trial, especially a jury trial. 
 > 
 > Well, the accused is generally the only person who knows whether he or 
 > she is actually guilty.  That person is presumed not to be ignorant of 
 > the law, and the law should be clear enough that there should be few 
 > misunderstandings.  So, a reduction in sentence for an early guilty plea 
 > by the guilty is a quid pro quo for saving all the expense, flummery and 
 > inconvenience of a jury trial, as well as salving some of our 
 > consciences because we think it shows some repentance. 
 > 
 > Were there to be no incentive, everyone would of course opt for a jury 
 > trial which would overload the system completely (not that it isn't 
 > already). 
 > 
 > It shouldn't be forgotten that with the vast majority of offences 
 > committed in the UK there is no right to a jury trial at all.  They are 
 > just heard and disposed of by magistrates. 
 > 
 >> A cornerstone of our justice system is that it is acceptable to the 
 >> common man. Any prosecution should be able to convince jurors that it is 
 >> right to sanction the defendant. The establishment may use weasel words 
 >> to mischaracterise the purpose of a jury, but the bottom line is that it 
 >> is supposed to ensure that the implementation of the law is acceptable 
 >> to the people. 
 >> 
 >> So the question remains, why did Lucy Connolly plead guilty when there 
 >> was a reasonable chance a jury would acquit her? 
 > Because, on the face of it, she *was* guilty, and she didn't want to go 
 > through a full trial and receive a full sentence. 
 > 
 > You may say the same about Mr Jones.  But he gambled on a full trial, 
 > and luckily found a sympathetic jury that you might think returned a 
 > perverse verdict under the law.  It's its right to decide how it likes 
 > on whatever basis it chooses of course, though the whole system comes 
 > into disrepute if it does so obviously perversely, without good reason 
 > and too often. 
 > 
 > The verdict in Mr Jones' case may have the effect of making the 
 > government think again whether the law will actually be enforceable in 
 > future, or whether his case was a one-off jury nullification that can be 
 > ignored as an anomaly 
  
 It is not necessarily jury nullification. The jury may have regarded Mr 
 Jones' 
 imprecation as hyperbole without substance; much like "Decapitate TERFs" 
 signs 
 at transgender activists' demonstration, not usually prosecuted as most 
 rational people would suspect that neither the holder of the sign or 
 his(sic) 
 audience seriously intended it to be acted upon. We will never know, 
 unfortunately. 
  
  
  
  
 > 
 > Your view on that is as good as mine. 
 > 
 > In the meantime, those accused can gamble if they wish.  They may win, 
 > they may lose. 
  
  
 -- 
 Roger Hayter 
  
 --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05 
  * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)