Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Number6, post: 2978436, member: 9008"] That’s the issue you believe which does not make it fact in a legalistic environment. I suppose question is what is the burden of proof in judiciary? Is it balance of probabilities like a civil court? To me the structure sounds more criminal (which is a huge problem if true as we should be supporting players not routinely ascribing criminal intent) where beyond reasonable doubt comes into effect. For me on balance of probabilities it is a shoulder charge but on reasonable doubt the hand is enough particularly given the disproportionate and unjust nature of the punishment and lack of discretionary remediation (a lesser penalty) which shouldn’t but will always be in panel’s mind. Besides if a Storm were smart they made sure the judiciary had lots of good food before and during deliberation since time of day and fullness of stomach has more to do with a verdict than merit of case based on human factors research. I agree with dexter so much wasted emotion here. It doesn’t matter what you think of slater or storm and so forth. IMO as someone who begrudgingly respects but doesn’t like the Storm the lesser of evils was done by what is likely a crappy system. Unlike rest of society much easier for NRL to redesign the system to prevent stupid situations like this that were well foreseeable. I’ve given a solution that I think could work better but that’s just my opinion. [/QUOTE]

No members online now.

Total: 183 (members: 0, guests: 183)