Posts by Brickley Paiste
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Idiocy is a little harsh, Brickley; more like statistically illiterate.
Isn't it idiotic to do X with the hope of achieving Y when there is no chance of ever achieving Y. What is idiocy other than doing really irrational things?
The universe's most miniscule chance at it is still a bigger chance than I'd get by, like, working for 30 years at my job.
The chance of winning is very small, but not quite as small as if I dont buy one. 1 out of a squillion chance is still INFINITELY bigger than zero. :) Tell me that is statistically wrong?
That is intrisically true. But it is like saying you're going to go for lots of walks outside to get hit by falling airplane parts. No walk, no airplane parts. It's not going to happen.
Unlike casinos, it’s a bit of harmless fun.
I really disagree with that. I saw a poor woman the other day with a bunch of kids and she spent $40 on lotto tickets and scratchies. I wanted to weep. That's harm. And it happens a lot. It's no different than casinos or the stock market. It's gambling.
Now, getting more tickets.... THAT I dont get..... because 2 (or 3 or 5) out of a squllion is not that big a change in the odds...
Exactly, and the same goes for spending $50 or $80 or whatever. It makes no meaningful statistical effect on your chances of winning.
You gotta be in to lose, I thought to myself.
Exactly.
Which is fine - if you've got the money to spend. A lot of people don't, and buy the ticket anyway, for the exact same reason you've outlined, and with somewhat less understanding of the statistical realities. And therein lies the rub.
Exactly.
-
but does anyone else share my total lack of interest in Big Wednesday?
YES! We make a virtue out of what is effectively a tax on idiocy. We need Keith on this but I think the chances of winning are so small it isn't worth buying a ticket. Like constantly going for walks hoping to be hit by falling airplane parts or something.
But it is a huge business and in some places a corrupt one at that.
-
That is all I am saying, and it is mostly in response to those who make sweeping statements about 'doing away' with the current jury system in certain circumstances.
Parliament has beaten you to it, Rich:
361EJudge may order trial without jury in cases involving intimidation of juror or jurors(1) The Judge may, on a written application for the purpose made by the prosecutor before an accused person is given in charge to the jury, order that the accused person be tried for the offence before the Judge without a jury.
(2) However, the Judge may make an order under subsection (1) only if satisfied that there are reasonable grounds to believe—
(a) that intimidation of any person or persons who may be selected as a juror or jurors has occurred, is occurring, or may occur; and
(b) that the effects of that intimidation can be avoided effectively only by making an order under subsection (1).
(3) If the accused person is one of 2 or more persons to be tried together, all of them must be tried before a Judge with a jury unless an order under subsection (1) for all of them to be tried by a Judge without a jury is applied for and made.
(4) This section does not limit sections 361B to 361D.
See also
-
I'm poorly placed to argue any further, not having been there. My point is that I cannot recall experienced journalists -- who were there for the whole three months -- describing a jury in these terms. Ever.
That is interesting because in my experience veteran court reporters know more about the law than lawyers. So there is definitely something to it.
I wonder, though, whether we would be having this conversation were the shoe on the other foot. In other words, the jury decided early in the piece that Bain was definitely guilty and then sent notes, doodled or whatever. I would venture that this happens all the time.
I think there is a gut instinct out there that the proper function of a jury is to convict, not acquit. But either way, justice has been done.
-
what Key trotted out three times yesterday was much more egregious than the usual Parliamentary trash-talking.
Yes it was. Kind of like this now infamous exchange that ran along similar lines..
MELISSA LEE: I would like Opposition members to read the victim impact report, to see what kind of damage these criminals do to innocent families. Perhaps they do not actually have the emotions to understand what it is like to be a victim. I mentioned it in my maiden speech-
Hon Phil Goff: That is very patronising. What would the member know about anything-
-
To state the obvious, Brickley, it's an issue because it raises doubts about the impartiality of these jury members.
Yeah of course but how can it be stopped? The jurors have a right to freedom of association. Were it the judge, that would be different. There was a case in Auckland in which a lawyer, after an acquittal, invited the entire jury to a party at his house and the law society didn't get cross. It doesn't smell nice but legally there has been no wrong-doing. The jury was, after all, Bain's "peers". To stop it I think you'd need professional jurors or judge-alone only trials.
one would have been forgiven for thinking that he had been proven innocent, such was the media response.
I was worried at the time that John Campbell was actually going to drop to his knees to felate Bain on live television. It was grotesque. All people charged with murder should be so lucky.
-
Thanks for posting that column. It was really well reasoned and hits the nail on the head in my view. Bain was either guilty OR the least lucky person on earth. Which is more likely?
And, next time Karam maintains Bain is innocent, he should be asked why this innocent man, who had nothing to hide, decided not to give evidence.
He may have said all he needed to say, but this jury should have heard it again.
That's problematic. He didn't have to give evidence. He had a right to silence and was presumed innocent. You only have to talk in Gitmo. And whether he had said all he needed to say before is irrelevant because the Privy Council properly quashed the convictions after our Court of Appeal forgot what appellate courts are for.
And why is it an issue that former jury members attend a party hosted by someone who is guilty of no crime? I agree there is something slightly off about it but they do have a freedom of association.
Thanks again for posting the piece.
-
The Peter Principle
Are you saying Jackson's appointment is an example thereof?
-
Creepy. I see Sue has been talking to Quebec federalists.
highly subjective
I think the Clerk could make a determination on an objective bassis. Would reasonable person honestly find that to be a clear question? It isn't that subjective.
I think it's a good idea. I like CIRs because I don't want to think I've totally yielded control to legislators but at the same time, such as in this case, the questions are loaded and opaque.
-
“…so loaded, so freighted, such an insult to the intelligence, that to address it at all is to allow oneself to be co-opted into a political charade…”
I think that's absolutely correct. Still, I'm going to vote yes because I don't want it getting around that the question is absurd so all the normal people who like the change in the law don't vote and only the lunatics I listened to on Talkback yesterday ("I currently don't follow the law at all myself personally, Leighton") vote.
Obfuscation is an important element to referendum questions, especially if you're pushing water up hill with a rake.
In 1995, there was a referndum in Quebec on whether it should separate from Canada. The question didn't say "Wanna be our own country mes amis?" but actually said:
"Do you agree that Quebec should become sovereign, after having made a formal offer to Canada for a new economic and political partnership, within the scope of the bill respecting the future of Quebec and of the agreement signed on June 12, 1995? Yes/No."
Sovereign or a partnership? Unilateral declaration of independence or a partnership? A lot of people voted yes because they thought it meant staying in Canada.
Our current referendum question seems equally prolix. The Fed in Canada then passed the "Clarity Act" which required a clear question on a separation referendum. Maybe we should do the same but keep CIRs.