Guilty.

Today I stood in a crowded courtroom and listened, as if somehow detatched,as that word seemed to echo around the room for an age.The verdict came as no surprise to me,for it was I who was asked to deliver it.

For the past two weeks I have been seconded to a jury to hear the case of two juveniles accused of a particularly brutal murder.I apologise if this has made me seem a little distracted, or edgy, or otherwise inattentive over that time.Because of the laws relating to jury trial,I decided that it would not be in the best interests of the case,or myself, if I made it widely known.

There is widespread acceptance that murder is fairly commonplace in the contemporary world,even murder committed by 14 year olds,but for two 14 year old girls and a fifteen year old girl,all drunk and out on the town after midnight,with a 12 year old sister and 13 year old brother in tow,to beat an elderly drunk around the head with a hammer and dump his unconscious body into a river,and then steal his car to go joyriding around town beggars belief.

Before anybody blames the parents,get this- it was the grandmotherof two of the accused who took their money and bought a bottle of cheap bourbon on their behalf. They were then driven to an aunt's house where they spent the early part of the evening drinking,and playing with their younger relatives.After the event, one of the girls went home, changed out of her blood-stained clothes, left them on top of the washing mashine and absconded in the stolen vehicle to be with relatives in another province.
Despite the fact that the mother found and laundered the blood-stained clothes, the girl was still not listed to the police as missing when the police murder investigation team located her three days later.

All of this may sound commonplace to you. It is foreign to all that I believe in. To be summoned to court and asked to examine autopsy photographs,blood-encrusted clothing,shattered dentures,and murder weapons,and use that information to convict what in a normal family would be considered children,has brought home to me how little I know about the dark underbelly of my chosen country.Driving home from the court afterwards,I passed two girls of similar age, dressed in clean, smart designer labels and walking clean, smart designer dogs.It is hard to believe that the country that until recently believed itself to be egalitarian and classless can have diverged to such a degree.

As I sit here in my nice warm house and reflect on the events of the past two weeks,down in a less fortunate town not very far away,there are several families for whom life will never be the same again....the victim's family, the offenders' families, and the families of the witnessess....And behind separate locked doors somewhere are two 14 year old girls ,and a fifteen year old, who where permitted to become old before their time.

If you have taken the time to read this, thank you.There are lessons to be drawn from this whole sorry mess, but this post is mainly for my own benefit.

T Man

I have been following the case you discuss along with the recent Choy murder case. I can't help thinking like you that some of the core ethical values of respect for the sanctity of human life, the respect for others property and person and finally the familial values of responsibility have been eroded in many parts of our communities.

However, in course of travelling across many continents I have had opportunity to grow weary of the evidence of man's inhumanity to man. I've harbored real doubts about whether the lessons on values, ethics and morals that I received as I grew up had validity anymore.

And then I've also seen evidence that in this maelstrom of violence, avarice and cruelty that there is something we can all do even in the most modest way to resist and to have faith that there is a better way.

What I mean to say is, I understand the fears and puzzlement that you express so well and share in your anger and sadness. I can only express the hope that when we rise tomorrow that as citizens of wherever we call home that the sharing of your experience of the past weeks will give us all the opportunity to pause and think about our actions and their consequences.


Regards

Rep

That is pretty horrendous to have to be involved with. I suppose its good that something like that still affects us. The last thing we would want is to be non sympathetic.

replicant: I believe he's speaking of this case: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2697014&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
:(
Mr. T: That's terrible. I don't understand how sane people could be capable of something like that. I'm sorry that you were personally involved by being on the jury - I think the cold reality of such an act would be near impossible to stomach. I wonder about the parents: so often they're not mere victims, but enablers, and often-times it seems society encourages enabling rather than discipline. It seems things have changed drastically over the last century, but terrible atrocities were committed in years previous as well. And I don't know what to say beyond that.

I'm sorry for what you went through. Hopefully you can hold to the knowledge that despite some of the evil that presents itself, humanity as a whole still strives to be good.

Originally posted by boingo82
replicant: I believe he's speaking of this case: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=2697014&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
:(


A rather dry version of events.The court reported for our local newspaper did a much better job.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/dailynews/0,2106,2046572a6002,00.html

Thanks for the links. I have been following this case as well as the Choy (Pizza Delivery Man) homicide. I also know the QC who acted as defence counsel for Kurariki during the Choy trial - incidentally he was also the defence lawyer for the convicted South Auckland serial rapist.

Some of my friends often ask why he puts himself in the position to defend these people. People that quite often have done terrible things that you and I as mainly reasonable folk have trouble comprehending. I think it's because he (as do I) believe in the basic principles of the Justice system (despite its many documented flaws).

It's this justice system that the T-man was part of yesterday. As part of twelve citizens who agreed that the acts committed were of such a terrible nature and that the evidence presented to them convinced them that the accused had committed them beyond any reasonable doubt.

It is reassuring in some ways that we find these acts abhorrent and unacceptable in the society that we aspire to. It also gives us some strength to know that in this case, those responsible were apprehended and are to punished according to the laws of the land.

Whether that is enough and how we address the prevention of this senseless act being repeated is something for us all to consider - especially when we act, vote and think - particularly on this day of the year.

I want to know one thing- for a school assignment- are juries for big cases like murder assembled with Law proffesionals or Members of the public :confused:

Originally posted by Moss1O6GTi
I want to know one thing- for a school assignment- are juries for big cases like murder assembled with Law proffesionals or Members of the public :confused:

:)

am I a lawyer?
:confused:

I'm not a lawyer either but I have a little exposure to the legal system (as commercial law was one of my majors)

The whole principle of trial by jury is that consists of a jury made of a cross-section of the community. Ordinary citizens like Mr T (who is by no means ordinary) are provided evidence often of extraordinary events and given the task to judge them in terms of the charges.

Trial by jury is by no means perfect - the prejudices of the jury and of society can lead to miscarriages of justice which is why we retain an appeal system.

The interaction of ordinary citizens provides an impartial voice to the proceedings of the court and legal system. This is considered to be an important component of a open and just legal system.

However, to answer your question - a jury consists of ordinary citizens but cases to appelate courts such as the Court of Appeal and the Privy Council (in the NZ Legal System anyway) are presided by judges. In particularly important cases, a full bench of the Court of Appeal (ie all the judges in this court) may preside on the case - whereas in other cases, only one Appeal Court judge may preside.

Judges are appointed by the Chief Justice (who is currently Sian Elias)under the advice of the legal profession.

Finally the Privy Council is based in Britain and consists of members of the House of Lords (The highest appelate court in the UK) and other selected judges/legal professionals from around the Commonwealth.