Sunday, November 16, 2008

The Downside Of Juries: Jurors.

The big problem with trial by one's peers is that frequently those peers are gibbering imbeciles. Example one:

A rape victim has hit out at the law after the man accused of attacking her was cleared because he was sleepwalking.

Jane McKenna, 33, was asleep at home when a friend's husband, who had been a guest at a barbecue, walked into the bedroom and started having sex with her.

Jason Jeal, a 37-year-old roofer with no medical history of sleepwalking, admitted sex had taken place. But he was cleared of rape after he insisted he had been asleep and had no idea what he was doing.
Uh huh. This defence could clear anyone of anything. The only evidence that he was sleepwalking is that he claims not to remember what he was doing, this is also a symptom of being drunk.
Speaking outside his home in Portsmouth, the former member of Portchester Cricket Club said: 'I did not use sleepwalking in my defence as I did not have any doctor's evidence or anything to back that up,' he said. 'With me, sleepwalking normally comes on through drink. People have told me I've done it before.'
So he exhibits symptoms similar to being drunk after drinking and concludes he must have been sleepwalking, and a jury buys that?

{via}

4 comments:

JuliaM said...

"The only evidence that he was sleepwalking is that he claims not to remember what he was doing, this is also a symptom of being drunk."

Or he could just be lying...

Ross said...

Of course. In order of probablity (highest to lowest) the most likely explanations are:

-He's lying.
- He was drunk.
- His long lost identical twin brother did whilst he wasn't there.
- Aliens did it.
- He was sleepwalking.

James Higham said...

Beautiful.

JuliaM said...

Well, that'd be the plotlines for 'Dallas' sorted...if it was still on the air! ;)