musicaljoke
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 20, 2013
- Messages
- 7,324
- Reaction score
- 38,812
Thanks for that. It appears in the part I read that they are discussing a trial debriefing session program in Manitoba with the jury behind closed doors with social workers. And that the judge would authorize this program. I didn't see anything where the judge is supposed to be giving them mental health advice, from the bench, during the course of the trial. But I do know that all provinces have been reviewing the impact of PTSD on jurors and perhaps they have made this recommendation in Alberta?
It's kind of hard to explain why it seems odd that a judge who is supposed to be completely impartial and unbiased about what is legally permitted to be discussed and shown in his courtroom, while he/she is presiding over a case, is admitting to the jury that the evidence against the accused is horrific and trauma inducing, therefore influencing the jury regarding the evidence. Does that make sense?
:waitasec:
MOO
I have the opinion that the jury needs to be addressed publicly as was the case in this trial. The thoughts of social workers in the jury room is very disturbing in that we don't know if anything the social worker says can influence the jury.
It will be interesting to see if the judge's address to the jury is challenged by the accused. I certainly hope not. jmo.