Again your answer leads me to believe that you are not studying law. A jury does not base its decisions on public opinion, it bases it on evidence seen and heard. No such process has been carried out to garner public opinion. No legal student would use public opinion as a guide to what the jury will do. I am saying that there is precedent for a player going to jail for GBH committed on a football pitch, and all that needed to be proven was that he intended to cause pain. This is fact. All that would need to be proven is that Shawcross intended to cause pain. Whether he did or not is unproven either way, you have one opinion and I have another. Those opinions matter not one jot in court. To suggest Shawcross could never had ended up in jail, and to laugh off the suggestion (with no basis other than it would not fit with public perception of what footballers can and cant do) is misguided and not dealing with the realities of the law. So, where are you studying again?
I think in the case of Chapman, which Jayram showed earlier, it did actually use the fact that he intended to hurt the victim to convict him of GBH. So that's what I've been referring to. However, the point of consent in a sport in which Shawcross just made a bad challenge (rather than beating him to a pulp) would also free him of conviction.
Parliamentary example of an Act being passed due to public outrage: Dangerous Dogs Act 1991 Judicial example of a judgement being passed due to public sensibility: R v Brown and others [1993]
Well the fact that two law students disagree with you shows you're most probably wrong. Public opinion has been used (which has been shown by rannaramshere), but I meant the jury are members of the public. The point I was making wasn't that they'd get swayed by the public, but because they are members of the public, they would also (when presented with the facts) probably come to the same conclusion- that he did not intend harm. I have proved the precedent is different to the case in that it was much easier to prove the intent in the other case than in this one, where Shawcross merely looked he was going for the ball but timed it awfully. How many times do I have to reinforce this? It's obvious you know nothing . Of course our opinions wouldn't matter, I'm literally just saying it's very unlikely you would find a jury who would unanimously think that Shawcross would deserve to be criminally liable for that challenge. It's hardly misguided, I understand you've raised a very interesting point of law, but I'm just saying that he would not be convicted, and quite a few others would agree with me.
Sorry, but courts go to great length to avoid public opinion entering the decision process. Often it seeps through and can influence, but that is very different from saying the public think one thing and therefore its fact that the jury will agree - which is what was claimed.
You are clearly not a law student. I have assumed you used it as a cheap debating tactic. Your continual use of the words fact and proof tell me for sure you are either lying or a very very bad law student. I will go with the former. We havent even raised the facts that the level of the person playing the sport and the force used can also be factors in determining intent to cause pain - but these are the things in detail that would be discussed as part of any case. Rann probably is from his posts - but actually he is only saying he does not think he could be convicted. No legal person would say it was impossible because as I have said, there is precedent.
Erm, I can tell you I am a law student. Why would I use that as a debating tactic? It would make me look even more stupid if you'd proved me wrong, which you certainly haven't. I didn't say it was impossible, I said it was very improbable and "near impossible". You've totally ignored the fact that they did not pursue this in a court of law essentially proving that it was very improbable that they would get a conviction, meaning I think deep down you know I'm correct. Ah you've changed your post to discredit my abilities- now who's using a cheap debating tactic? I don't pretend I'm great, but I'm certainly not rubbish, otherwise I wouldn't have got onto the course. Erm yes, I use the word fact for...facts? And maybe as an exaggeration of my point in some areas, I really can't be bothered to filter through this whole discussion to find every time I've used the word.
The law aims to follow public opinion. Homosexual partnerships were not legally recognised until the public demanded it. Dangerous dogs were not regulated until the public demanded it. Of course, there is the converse situation where the law influences public opinion, for example drunk driving didn't hold the stigma, it does today, until the law was changed to prevent it.
Ah I know Surrey well GoonerRVP - I used to live in Guildford. What course are you studying? and on which campus?
I agree with this, but laws being changed to reflect public opinion is not what we are talking about here though.
Well at least we're getting somewhere. So you now agree that if charges had been pressed there is a chance Shawcross would have gone to jail and it would have been based on the evidence at hand (where to date only opinion has been passed)?
Used to live on Warren Road mate at St Lukes Park Also on the other side of the town, up on The Mount. Used to lounge around in Bar38, shall we say 'people watching'
I agree that it could have been possible, I've never disagreed with that, I merely said it was very unlikely as it would be very hard to prove he had the intent you suggest he had.
Well it is actually very relevant. This also happens in the judicial system. I recognise that you mean that they cannot use public opinion as evidence for a fact but I am referring to the use of public opinion in deciding whether or not they would even charge Shawcross in the first place.
Ahh I see haha . Yeah, just looked those up as I really haven't explored very much , The Mount is close-ish to where I'm at .
Hard to prove I agree with. I do get a little annoyed with the sense of protection footballers seem to think they have though. There have actually been many other cases where footballers have been very lucky to get away with what they have done. Deliberate punches and elbows to the face, for instance, are not covered under consent in football.
The Law does not AIM to follow public opinion at all. It concedes only when the MPs develop a majority view and lobby for change. Hanging was stopped due to the MPs - NOT public opinion. Points on a driving licence leading to banning was not a public opinion measure. If we held referenda each week on issues of public interest - the law drafting business would need hundreds of new recruits to cope with all the required legal changes the public would want, but MPs collectively have no stomach for it. Its about MPs thinking they have a better opinion than Joe-public.
I know the Uni quite well - years before I lived in Guildford I used to visit a mate who was studying civil engineering at Surrey. Many a night in the Student Union.... I can remember the Student Union well in terms of going there but not what happened
