Jury Duty...Meow!

Today's posts have been a little heavy. So, it is time to lighten the mood somewhat.

Here is bureaucracy in action.

Sal, the pet cat, has been summonsed for pussy jury duty. It would seem that in spite of Sal's limited language and comprehension skills, and the fact that he is a cat, he is still required for jury duty at the Suffolk Superior Crown Court in Boston.

Sal's owner, Anna Esposito told the powers that be that Sal was a cat. She even went to the trouble of getting Sal's vet to confirm that Sal was not fit for jury duty. It would certainly liven up proceedings to see a cat occupying Chair No. 12. It would be even more fun if young Sal was elected forepussy  foreperson of the jury. But, when push comes to shove, it will not take the court long to realise that Sal is disqualified from sitting on the jury because he does not speak English.

On a serious note though. This case should highlight how badly bureaucracy can get things wrong. Perhaps it is something one needs to remember when dealing with a bureaucracy, as frustrating as they can be. The cat for jury duty arose because the last US census asked for people to note down family pets. It seems Sal graduated from family pet to family member, and then qualified for jury duty.

I have to say, this story certainly allowed me a giggle. After all, could you imagine Sal sitting on the jury in a case of a dog doing the doo on the pavement? The dog is a goner, electric chair all the way!

Child Abuse -- The Baby Swinging Video Charges Dropped...

Finally, common sense has prevailed in this case and the charges have been dropped. This case was a loser from the outset and should never have been brought by the police. It was a case of over-zealousness on the part of the police or maybe even a not so subtle attempt to try and judicially broaden the scope of the relevant legislation. In any event, it failed and rightly so.

I have written about this case on three separate occasions and you can find those posts here.

The Office of the Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions (CDPP) has dropped the charges. The realization that if this went to a jury trial that they would be very unlikely to succeed in convincing a jury of Christopher Illingworth's peers that he was guilty of distributing child abuse material has prevailed.

The video was posted on Liveleak and showed a man swinging a baby. The man and the baby remain pretty much unknown. However, the video is purportedly of either a Russian or Ukrainian circus family doing a little bit of training. At the end of the video the baby is smiling and laughing.

What was even more bizarre was that the Australian Film Classification Board classified this as MA15+ which would suggest that they were not convinced that the material was of a standard that would see it become a criminal offense under the provisions for child abuse material. Ultimately, the classification sealed the deal for Illingworth. There was simply no way that a jury would have been convinced that he had broken the law.

This ends the criminal saga however it is unclear whether Illingworth has any recourse for the trauma he has suffered as a result of his home being raided by the police, his arrest, and subsequent committal for trial.

Can Rape Be A Joke? -- The Follow-Up...

In a follow-up to an earlier post that discussed this particular case and whether or not rape could be a joke, the jury has come back with a verdict. The rape itself might not have been a joke, but it seems that the jury has been convinced that it was accidental. The jury consisted of six men and six women and they took just shy of two hours to reach their verdict of "not guilty".

The prosecutor, Kieran Gilligan, instructed the jury that they must be satisfied that there was penetration, that is was deliberate, that there was no consent, and that Naggs knew that the man was not consenting to any penetration.

The man who claimed that he had been raped was a willing participant in the events and had said something to the effect of "Be gentle. Don't do it too hard." I am guessing that probably sealed it for most of the jurors.

The jury acquitted Naggs and she is free to return to what she has apparently been doing for the past thirteen years, and doing quite well by all accounts.

So, the lesson from this case would seem to be that rape is not a joke, but in a very particular set of circumstances a rape could be accidental and therefore not rape. I think.

Mobile Phones and Nudes

My philosophy has always been that if you are going to take naked pictures of yourself, your spouse, your friends, or whoever on a mobile phone, then you want to take extra care not to lose your phone or leave it lying around in public places unattended.

However, this is not the case in Fayettville, Arkansas, where a Mr. Phillip Sherman left his mobile phone in McDonald's. Realizing his misfortune, he called the store and staff apparently agreed to secure the mobile phone until Sherman was able to return to collect it. Secure it they did. It would also seem that they checked out what was on Sherman's mobile phone and found some naked pictures of a woman, who is in fact Sherman's wife.

Theses pictures somehow found their way onto the Internet and their existence was made know to Sherman. In response for the embarrassment he and his wife have suffered, Sherman has filed suit seeking USD 3 million in damages. His claim is against McDonald's, the franchise owner for that part of the world, and the store manager. Sherman wants a jury trial. I am guessing he wants a jury trial because he feels that maybe 12 of his peers will be more sympathetic to his claim than a judge.

The moral of the story, if you are going to take naked pictures of people using your mobile phone then take extra care not to lose the thing! (the photo is from here)