De-Belin

[happy_tiger]

Been on 2 jury's ...one for a dog that was killed and another was a rape case

Lot different from TV .....the lawyer's from both sides were about as useful as tits on a bull

 

[sleeve]

Its truly ugly this system,no wonder only 1 in 10 rape cases are reported,

 

[hank37w]

I was the foreman on a jury back in the 90's. That was quite an experience dealing with the emotions and preconceived ideas that some of the other jurors had. They were ready to find the accused guilty and send him up the river on really flimsy evidence just because they didn't like the look of him.
I thought the guy looked pretty dodgy myself but there was no way you could convict him on what was presented.

Are you Henry Fonda?

No, and there were not 12 angry men, some of them were women.
I assume that's the movie you were referring to.

Have to agree with Happy about the professionalism and ability of the lawyers, they were useless, especially the prosecutor who was absolutely hopeless. It was pretty obvious that they hadn't done too much homework on the case and were making it up on the run.

 

[sleeve]

Too many people are pre-judjing this case,and looking at lurid testamonies.All court cases look ugly.Just let justice prevail.Ican understand the NRLbringing in the stand down policy,many sponsors threatened withdrawing.I think they have opened up a can of worms.Iam sure all codes have had players that have come under the eye of the law,but it has been covered up.This policy has only created more bad headlines for the game.

 

[Rusty]

I was on a jury for sexual assault and one of the male jurors had already decided the defendant was innocent because he didnt look the type(clean cut business type).Fortunately we were discharged on the 2nd day because a female juror didnt turn up.The judge decided to empannel another 12 people to hear the case.

Clearly they need some law changes the system stinks, I think only recently they’ve put things in place to protect victim privacy/well being and not making them attend court and other stuff.

Agree, It all starts when they select the jury, 90 average Joes walk in, and then the fun begins. Each one has been profiled to decide the best outcome for each side. whilst they are thinking what has this guy done!!
I have seen people's fates from split decisions on a Friday afternoon swayed by the judges saying we will come back tomorrow and boom, their been escorted down a dark corridor by correctional staff to spend the weekend in the watch house. Justice I think not

Trial by a Judge, take all the emotion out MTB

 

[coivtny]

I was the foreman on a jury back in the 90's. That was quite an experience dealing with the emotions and preconceived ideas that some of the other jurors had. They were ready to find the accused guilty and send him up the river on really flimsy evidence just because they didn't like the look of him.
I thought the guy looked pretty dodgy myself but there was no way you could convict him on what was presented.

Are you Henry Fonda?

No, and there were not 12 angry men, some of them were women.
I assume that's the movie you were referring to.

Have to agree with Happy about the professionalism and ability of the lawyers, they were useless, especially the prosecutor who was absolutely hopeless. It was pretty obvious that they hadn't done too much homework on the case and were making it up on the run.

I really thought I was on to something. The storyline was very similar and your username of Hank is short for Henry.
Being serious for a moment, my experiences of the legal system through the prism of jury service was equally frustrating. It really does seem like everything is done on the run and both sides don't seem to give a damn how much their inefficiency cost taxpayers. I'd imagine the costs of the inefficiencies in the various legal systems around the country would run into billions every year.

 

[sleeve]

Trial by media.This is not about the sex that may seem to be abborhant to many;.Its about weather she gave cosent or not. Get a grip and stop looking at just the lurid details.

 

[jirskyr]

In defence of the no-fault stand-down, many employers would stand down an employee under serious allegation.

Imagine the CFO of a company is accused of sexual harassment in the workplace; does anyone think that company is going to be happy with him continue his regular job, as if nothing has happened, whilst those accusations are assessed?

Especially if those claims cannot be rapidly dismissed, because the accusation does not make it to trial unless it is believed there is a genuine case.

You even had the ASIC and Australia Post bosses stand down / pay back monies recently due to the public backlash on the way they were spending taxpayer's money. None of them technically did anything illegal and yet their jobs were untenable.

That's the point of the no-fault stand-down, as others have said, to allow the employer to sideline the scandal whilst it is being investigated.

And specifically in respect to De Bellend, whilst I don't know if he's guilty or not, he's stupid enough to put himself in this position and it's all of his own making. Consensual or not, it is a fact that he was rooting a young lady WITH his mate whilst his pregnant partner was at home. Unbelievable - I mean, have all the group sex you want if you are 25, wealthy and built like a brick house, but don't get married and father a child at the same time mate.

 

[earl]

In defence of the no-fault stand-down, many employers would stand down an employee under serious allegation.

I said this earlier. It's a standard approach. You have to do it. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation. I'll let the jury decide the outcome but I reckon the guy is scum.

 

[tony soprano]

In defence of the no-fault stand-down, many employers would stand down an employee under serious allegation.

I said this earlier. It's a standard approach. You have to do it. He shouldn't have put himself in that situation. I'll let the jury decide the outcome but I reckon the guy is scum.

People aren’t use to footy players not being able to do what ever they want

 

[happy_tiger]

And the Hayne Stain is in a similar boat

I agree with the no fault stand down ....but the NRL should have looked at how slow the legal process is ....being stood down for over 2 seasons ...they better find him guilty ...the NRL could be in a lot of strife legally if he is cleared

 

[Nelson]

I was on a jury for sexual assault and one of the male jurors had already decided the defendant was innocent because he didnt look the type(clean cut business type).Fortunately we were discharged on the 2nd day because a female juror didnt turn up.The judge decided to empannel another 12 people to hear the case.

Clearly they need some law changes the system stinks, I think only recently they’ve put things in place to protect victim privacy/well being and not making them attend court and other stuff.


Agree, It all starts when they select the jury, 90 average Joes walk in, and then the fun begins. Each one has been profiled to decide the best outcome for each side. whilst they are thinking what has this guy done!!

That is not correct. Neither side knows anything about any of the jurors in NSW other than what they see of them when they walk in. There are a limited number of objections that each side has and they are generally used to:
- Try and secure a particular gender balance (or imbalance) that is thought to be advantageous to the party objecting (or from the perspective of the State, just fairly balanced)
- To eliminate demograhics (based or racial and class stereotypes) that a party thinks will be unsymapthetic to their case
- or, most properly, to eliminate people who look like they won't pay attention/understand/take it seriously etc.

There is no science to it, it is entirely instinctive and attempts at eliminating demographics can backfire by painting your client as, for example, racist. They especially backfire when you use up all your objections eliminating people of a particular background and then the next juror called is from that background...

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

 

[PJ_]

In defence of the no-fault stand-down, many employers would stand down an employee under serious allegation.

Imagine the CFO of a company is accused of sexual harassment in the workplace; does anyone think that company is going to be happy with him continue his regular job, as if nothing has happened, whilst those accusations are assessed?

Especially if those claims cannot be rapidly dismissed, because the accusation does not make it to trial unless it is believed there is a genuine case.

You even had the ASIC and Australia Post bosses stand down / pay back monies recently due to the public backlash on the way they were spending taxpayer's money. None of them technically did anything illegal and yet their jobs were untenable.

That's the point of the no-fault stand-down, as others have said, to allow the employer to sideline the scandal whilst it is being investigated.

And specifically in respect to De Bellend, whilst I don't know if he's guilty or not, he's stupid enough to put himself in this position and it's all of his own making. Consensual or not, it is a fact that he was rooting a young lady WITH his mate whilst his pregnant partner was at home. Unbelievable - I mean, have all the group sex you want if you are 25, wealthy and built like a brick house, but don't get married and father a child at the same time mate.

Bringing a moral argument into a discussion about law 🙄

 

[PJ_]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

Yeah mate I understand what you are saying and agree in part but my disagreement is with the nrl policy. We have built up our current system with the 'must be proven guilty' tenet, we can't allow this to be tainted.

 

[Rusty]

I was on a jury for sexual assault and one of the male jurors had already decided the defendant was innocent because he didnt look the type(clean cut business type).Fortunately we were discharged on the 2nd day because a female juror didnt turn up.The judge decided to empannel another 12 people to hear the case.

Clearly they need some law changes the system stinks, I think only recently they’ve put things in place to protect victim privacy/well being and not making them attend court and other stuff.

>
Agree, It all starts when they select the jury, 90 average Joes walk in, and then the fun begins. Each one has been profiled to decide the best outcome for each side. whilst they are thinking what has this guy done!!

That is not correct. Neither side knows anything about any of the jurors in NSW other than what they see of them when they walk in. There are a limited number of objections that each side has and they are generally used to:




alance (or imbalance) that is thought to be advantageous to the party objecting (or from the perspective of the State, just fairly balanced)
- To eliminate demograhics (based or racial and class stereotypes) that a party thinks will be unsymapthetic to their case
- or, most properly, to eliminate people who look like they won't pay attention/understand/take it seriously etc.

There is no science to it, it is entirely instinctive and attempts at eliminating demographics can backfire by painting your client as, for example, racist. They especially backfire when you use up all your objections eliminating people of a particular background and then the next juror called is from that background...


Mate agree 100% with what you have said. My use of the words "has been" was incorrect and was worded poorly

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

Yeah mate I understand what you are saying and agree in part but my disagreement is with the nrl policy. We have built up our current system with the 'must be proven guilty' tenet, we can't allow this to be tainted.

I understand that and in the court of law he is still considered as such. The NRL are not casting aspersions to his guilt, rather that he faces serious charges and they are standing him down with pay while he answers those.

I believe other forms of employment will stand people down with pay while investigation is pending, it's not exclusive to the NRL. Police are one example.

 

[Geo]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

Yeah mate I understand what you are saying and agree in part but my disagreement is with the nrl policy. We have built up our current system with the 'must be proven guilty' tenet, we can't allow this to be tainted.

I understand that and in the court of law he is still considered as such. The NRL are not casting aspersions to his guilt, rather that he faces serious charges and they are standing him down with pay while he answers those.

I believe other forms of employment will stand people down with pay while investigation is pending, it's not exclusive to the NRL. Police are one example.

Didn't De Bellend chalenge the policy in a Court of Law and that Court ruled in the NRL's favour..?

 

[clontarfkid]

To demonstrate how flawed the NRL system is,Josh Reynolds was probably within a bees of being stood down and fortunately for him it was revealed his "partner"had considerable form.Cld easily have gone the other way
Just goes to show innocent until proven guilty has stood the centuries old test of time for a reason..
Plus..to be pefectly honest...some of the" persons un-named" lassies who become the victim literally throw themselves at the players and ...
Careful road to tread for everybody

 

[PJ_]

Imagine if they let him play. They would have allowed an alleged rapist to play for 2 years. Would have been incredibly bad PR.

Alleged.
The nrl didn't know what the court outcome would be?

Okay cool let's just let a guy with that hanging over his head continue playing in the NRL. I'm sure that will go over well with a lot of people. No way would anyone walk away from the game in that situation.

Who's to say how it would affect him. If he knew he was innocent then it might not bother him. The nrl is not the criminal court, that's all I'm saying. How can you punish someone for allegedly doing something?

They are protecting a brand which draws its own revenue and income. Are they not entitled to protect the brand which supports every other player in the league?

Not to the detriment of an individual who hasn't been found guilty

He is still being paid. He's not being told to give up hundreds of thousands of dollars to go flip burgers. NRL have done it right IMO with serious offences subject to paid stand down. They are serious allegations and the NRL would be bashed from pillar to post if he is found guilty for letting a convicted rapist play the game. They can't win either way.

Yeah mate I understand what you are saying and agree in part but my disagreement is with the nrl policy. We have built up our current system with the 'must be proven guilty' tenet, we can't allow this to be tainted.

I understand that and in the court of law he is still considered as such. The NRL are not casting aspersions to his guilt, rather that he faces serious charges and they are standing him down with pay while he answers those.

I believe other forms of employment will stand people down with pay while investigation is pending, it's not exclusive to the NRL. Police are one example.

Didn't De Bellend chalenge the policy in a Court of Law and that Court ruled in the NRL's favour..?

Yeah I believe it was part of the nrl constitution that allows them to stand down players. All the players must sign to be able to play in the nrl.