Derek Chauvin GUILTY

[lardy]

What has all that got to do with trying to defend a guy that you know yourself is guilty?
If Chauvins defence could have somehow got him off with some kind of miraculous technicality, they would have, and wouldn’t have blinked an eye at letting a guilty man walk.
As i said, everyone is entitled to a defence, but you’ve got to have some teal thick skin to try to defend the indefensible, in a court of law.

I think in these cases, the defence's job is to make sure the prosecution and police have done their jobs properly.

If you have a system where people are pretty much guilty before any trial, and there are countries like that, then that makes it easier for innocent people in other cases to be found guilty. It's easier for the state to go for their enemies.

So it's to keep the other side in check by always providing a defence, no matter what.

[Taunton Blue Genie]

I think in these cases, the defence's job is to make sure the prosecution and police have done their jobs properly.

If you have a system where people are pretty much guilty before any trial, and there are countries like that, then that makes it easier for innocent people in other cases to be found guilty. It's easier for the state to go for their enemies.

So it's to keep the other side in check by always providing a defence, no matter what.

An interesting article regarding this subject:
https://metro.co.uk/2018/08/01/peopl...y-job-7750268/

By the way, has anyone on here been on jury service and who had to mull over what the concept of 'beyond reasonable doubt' really means? Yes, the literal meaning can be looked up but it's a tad nebulous in one's own mind perhaps.