Not disputing any of that Lizzie, but I find it somewhat hypocritical that people are getting away with murder, literally, yet others are ending up in prison for crimes that may or may not have been ignored when they took place.
The jury should reach a verdict based on the evidence presented regardless, but a younger jury might decide on a guilty verdict before the end of the opening statements, whereas an older jury would be more likely to consider the evidence in the context of when the offences took place 
net result ought to be the same though, so I guess it's a moot point
Tbh Al, the crime of paedophilia is the most sick hideous crime that I can think off and I honestly don't see what the age of the jury has to do with it or why they should look at it any different.
It was just as vile 30 or 40 years ago as it is today.
The only difference is it is talked about more due to the media and internet, and people being more aware of what is going on in the world.
No arguments from me on that score... maybe it is simply the media aspect of it all
Certainly not trying to defend any one, just concerned that such cases seem to be fuelled by a combination of greed and media frenzy, both things that an older jury might be less susceptible too and therefore give a balanced, rather than a possibly prejudiced verdict. As said earlier, it's probably a moot point as if guilty, the evidence should speak volumes over the media circus... wouldn't change anything but might help maintain the integrity of the judicial process, rather than the current trend to trial by media, which is a genuine concern for everyone
Author
Topic: It started right at the top in the 1970's (Read 1701 times)