Murder Or Mercy?
Murder or assisted suicide?...A Canadian judge imprisoned for life...in the death of his wife...but she was not well and because of his extra marital affair...and the burden to care for his wife who suffered a stroke and was partially paralyzed...he was deemed a murderer...I think he is innocent...what are your thoughts...
Comments (62)
Like I said, first degree, second degree are all decided upon that thin line of what is reasonable or not.
The uploaded video of Smith is just that, explanation which doesn't represent an actual decision.
Although it is a guide, laws are not interpreted with questionable theories. That's all taken place in the trial.
Another thing. The reason why depending on the severity of the case, each of the members of the jury don't come up with exact numbers are, again, they are not robots, they're human beings with different variables in their ability to get affected. But reason and logic make them all arrive at the unified decision.
It is not as it has been claimed on this thread. If judges can irrationally accept up to 25% doubt, what is the likelihood of untrained jurors making objective, rational decisions with no bias?
What is the likelihood that some jurors will be dominated by some others? How easy is it to be the one juror who says no? How does that social dynamic really work?
Can you define a 'reasonable person', please?
My personal definition is someone who acts with reason. Not emotion of which explain why the jury found him guilty. Per the OP, and the direction of this blog, according to my understanding is that, emotions based on compassion would not be a ground for acquittal. Always logic.
And when a case is decided it's even more difficult to carry the burden of proof. So there's got to be a compelling evidence that was not considered in the first trial.
Thanks for commenting here...appreciate your opinions...and thanks for the video...reasonable doubt is what I question in this case...the jury decided he killed his wife but I think people did not fully understand what went on...the evidence in my opinion was not convincing enough to imprison him for life...the lies added to his predicament...sad really...
I think the jury was not savvy enough to question the evidence that the prosecution delivered...the burn on her hand and why it was there, and the angle of the gun that they suggested was caused by him and not the victim...not 100% accurate but good enough to convince the jury...my point is that it is worth granting him an appeal to find the truth...
I think he deserves another kick at the can so to speak...justice was not served...the man was painted in the press so badly...hard to have a fair trial...
Does this make them a reasonable person?
If not, how do you define a reasonable person?
So, in 40 minutes you more fully understood what went on than the jury who went through the court process for over a month?
Or maybe you have experienced a different presentation of information?
I saw things in the documentary which would lead to me doubting Delisle's guilt, but also a number of contradictions which has lead to me doubting his innocence.
With over a month of differently presented trial information, perhaps a crucial piece of evidence added, or missed might have convinced me of his guilt. Certainly, I had many unanswered questions after watching the documentary.
Whilst I'm glad the case is being reviewed, I don't think I'm in a position to make a judgement after watching a 40 minute documentary.
I would like to see many cases reviewed.
I would like to see the justice system reviewed. Jurors are presumably selected with bias - would someone who works in McDonalds be selected for a high profile, complex case? Does someone's employment define their abilities accurately?
Do those selected for jury service have enough knowledge, or expertise to handle the information presented in today's courts? For example, how many people have knowledge of how we recall sound versus visual stimuli which may effect a witness's representation of an order of events?
I'm not sure a jury system is a rational, or reasonable system, but I'm not sure what is.
I don't think anyone wants an ignorant person on the jury...people are biased despite being instructed not to...on that note...the full story hasn't been heard...his story...an error that needs to be corrected...if his story and other evidence is heard and he is still convicted...I could live with it...look up David Milgaard...he was wrongfully convicted...it does happen!!...not a perfect system but we do need to take it seriously...the juror's job is tough and sometimes the evidence presented is flawed...
I find myself deferring to Clive Stafford Smith again, one of the most compassionate (and brave) people I have ever come across.
If we try to understand why someone has done something, we are exploring motive. Motive is a very big part of the guilty/not guilty decision making process as I understand it.
If someone's motive for killing a loved one is to release them from torturous pain and unbearable misery, you have a different scenario than if their motive is to increase their suffering.
How do you define 'an ignorant person' and how would you go about deselecting those people?
What did you mean when you asked 'what are your thoughts' in your OP?
Such an ambulance chaser...lol...
I am glad that many have heard of this case...because without exposure...it would have been kept quiet...crossing my fingers and HOPING FOR A GOOD RESULT...
Everything that happens has reasons. The selection of the jury is based on a very strict guidelines to meet their reasonable level. You might not qualify.
Everything that happens has reasons. The selection of the jury is based on a very strict guidelines to meet their reasonable level. You might not qualify.
Thanks for the back up...you know me...care more about the human than the protocols of jury selection...hoping that his story will be heard...