I was thinking about one of my recent blogs where I mentioned that defence barristers make a lot of noise to juries that they must ‘be sure’ before they convict. Previously I heard a juror mention some time after a trial how could he be sure if he wasn’t there.
This is like Syria, we all know that Assad’s forces fired chemical bombs but he is saying it was the ‘terrorists’ as he describes them. I know some of the opposition are capable of doing this but the intelligence and evidence of bomb parts plus comments coming from the weapons inspectors prior to their report, makes us sure Assad did it. Or did he? We haven’t examined the evidence ourselves so many will doubt its truth not only his supporters but middle of he road people.
When judges are summing up to the jury they cover this point. They instruct the jury to consider the evidence, strengths and weaknesses of the witnesses, and make the decision as if it was a personal matter they were considering in their own life. They don’t give any examples but I suppose one could think of things such as the food we eat. Most people know that chemicals are in a lot of our food, but what harm do they do? Some are convinced that you will get cancer others are not so sure so they go on feeding their children this stuff.
Why is it all so confusing? Why can’t Governments force companies to put labels on food such as cigarette packets, ‘This food could seriously damage your health’ ‘Eating bacon kills’ (slowly). Good food could be labelled in an opposite fashion ‘Eating this (lettuce) will be good for your health’ ‘Eat these apples because they are good but first wash of the killer chemical’. We could then make easy decisions.
That’s it then, problem solved. Now let me sort out thieves and drug dealers. After three conviction no more children because they turn out the same, plus a stamp on their head ‘don’t come near me I’m a drug dealer, my name is….’
That would solve it.
What about God then? There is evidence but