There's a reason we have trials rather than relying on newspaper reports

Juries are not infallible buit they at least listened to arguments from experts on both sides and then drew their conclusion - after quite a lengthy deliberation and debate, with all the facts and the law in front of them. I've not heard all the evidence from both sides and you can be sure you're not reading that in the newspapers either. So it's very hard to draw a conclusion on what's right or wrong.

Sentencing is not just decided by the judge but based on a recipe - see User Posted Link for example. The judge does have discretion but not buckets of it. If a sentence is felt to be too lenient the prosecution can appeal that aspect separately from the trial outcome itself.

Miscarriages of justice do happen and juries do get things wrong. But I'd still much rather our current system than trial by media. Never forget that a newspaper's job is not to tell you the news. It's to sell the newspaper. They do this by playing in to the mindset of their target audience. The biggest selling daily is the Mail...

Posted By: Old Man, Jul 25, 11:15:16