And now Jon Venables

[panoma1]

Surely the jury determines whether the accused is either guilty or innocence, based on the evidence presented to them, and the judge, judges the seriousness of crime and from this uses his/her judgment to impose the sentence (within a predetermined tariff) he/she deems appropriate....is that not why the judge is called the judge? (and the jury is not!) ...........because he/she judges?

I dunno, but that's how I understand it!! 

[Gordon R]

Both the jury and the Judge actually judge the accused. The jury judge them to be innocent or guilty. The Judge then sentences based on that judgement.

It matters not. People do judge others, without walking a mile in their shoes etc.

[henry d]

That is one of the reasons I refuse jury duty.

We heard the recent case about the cabbie, Worboys (?), that there were others who had evidence against him, but prosecutors said they had enough to put him away for a long time and that evidence may have prevented his recent parole. Coupled with the tales my wife told me about her jury service when people refused to believe the evidence, or forgot some of it, and judged the person in the dock from the moment they saw them, rather like the movie, Twelve angry men.