Quill’s response to: They were sentenced to deportation, but victims of the Rochdale grooming gang still see their attackers in public.

6.24.19

Ben Reilly wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense, you don't need to get into a detail quagmire in order to recognize a pattern.

How do you think precedence takes shape? Case #1 and case #2 are not the same in detail, but courts find like circumstances between two cases all the time.

The subject of a given case under the microscope is the underlying issue, not the factual minutiǽ.

In this case, the precedent is that numerous gangs have been accused of doing this all throughout northern England, and I've never heard a trial lawyer hand-wave away things like facts as a "detail quagmire" or "minutia." The facts matter quite a bit in criminal cases, do they not?

I don't care about this case. I've elevated my discussion to issues of principle. If you believe that law is principled, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

I used the term "detail quagmire" to signal that I'm not now interested in this case, if I ever was. I don't know the facts, nor do you. Only the parties and lawyers involved know the facts. Further, you and I know only what trickles down to some reporter, who wants us to know only his slant.

To me this case is a platform for a scam that the wealthy and privileged play on the public every day. Anyone who wants to regurgitate the story fed to them by some reporter, is doing no better...I can assure.

Neither of us has all the facts, of course, but I do think I've looked at a lot of the evidence, whereas I don't think you have.

I'm not just talking about media reports -- what I've seen was based on court transcripts, victims' testimonies, etc.

Let's not forget that these men were accused well before they were brought to trial, and that when they finally were brought to trial, they were convicted by a jury.

Ben Reilly wrote:Neither of us has all the facts, of course, but I do think I've looked at a lot of the evidence, whereas I don't think you have.

I'm not just talking about media reports -- what I've seen was based on court transcripts, victims' testimonies, etc.

Let's not forget that these men were accused well before they were brought to trial, and that when they finally were brought to trial, they were convicted by a jury.

I've only read the OP.  I'm not interested in the facts of this case.  I'm more interested in the course of legal procedure in this case.  I'm using this case as a platform to point up what racism and discrimination does to the legal institution.

Bias infects prosecutors.  Bias infects judges.  Most important, bias infects the jurors.  The jurors are the "public" part of the system.  The jury system is the way that bias invades and spreads through the entire judicial system...like metastatic cancer.

The more advanced infection is the US, with its treatment of blacks.  I've studied discrimination in America.  And I've studied how attitudes flow through the judicial system.  Equipped with the fruits of my studies, I doubt, hearing how Brits feel about Muslims generally, that these boys sailed through the judicial system without some cracks in the process.

I think most Brits would say, So, they got what they deserved!! But I'm not worried about what it does the defendants. I'm worried about what it does to the institution. Most people think that institutions are too large to reel from a hit; but take a look at what's happening to the legal system in the US. And the precedent was set when they let Cheney slip through their fingers.

Original Quill wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:Neither of us has all the facts, of course, but I do think I've looked at a lot of the evidence, whereas I don't think you have.

I'm not just talking about media reports -- what I've seen was based on court transcripts, victims' testimonies, etc.

Let's not forget that these men were accused well before they were brought to trial, and that when they finally were brought to trial, they were convicted by a jury.

I've only read the OP.  I'm not interested in the facts of this case. .

wow, sums up the worst in lawyers I guess