Educational Value Of Verdict Series

Radio Record, Volume VIII, Issue 34, 1 March 1935, Page 50

Educational Value Of Verdict Series

To the Editor Sir-I consider the Broadcasting Board is missing a great opportunity for educating the many who listen in to use their discrinimating faculties as future jurymen by not going further with the "We Await Your Verdict" items on the programmes. In the case of the first of these trials five people gave their verdict in favour of the plaintiff to every one in favour of the defendant. Now it would be of great educational value if two or more of the best of the letters from each side were read out by the announcer. As it is, the bare fact is stated that the plaintiff had an overwhelming majority of five to one in her favour, but no one knows how each side reasoned its out. In the case mentioned above I gave a verdict for the defendant, and for the following reasons: The plaintiff showeil to the defendant by her attitude in the dispute over the game of cards’ that she was extremely selfish and unsportsmanlike, and she left an unpleasant impression on her hostess. as to her character; therefore when she later went to her room and found her bag with the money it contained had disappeared, and as she believed her recent visitor was the only one who had been in the room that evening other than herself. she quite naturally thinks such a person as this woman had shown herseit to be that evening would be quite capable of succumbing to sudden temptation. She wishes to give her the benefit of the doubt, so rings her up to inquire of she has seen the bag when in the room, Her visitor of the previous evening: immediately jumps to the conclusion that she is suspected of the theft and calls her late hostess all the nasty names she can think of. After this second exhibition of the lady’s character the last doubt of the defendant disappears, and She at once lays information to the police, which leads to prosecution. Now, in all the above there need not be one scrap of malice, but only conviction, which was brought about by the plaintiff’s own attitude at the game of cards and over the phone. That above is how I reason out this case, but I would like to know how the other side come to their conclusion, because if I am wrong I would like to know why, and therefore, as a possible future juryman, I would be educated by the reasons given on both sides in eaci case, I consider, sir, that these trials will give a splendid opportunity which should not be missed by the board,I am, ete., .

W. E.

GOULTER.

Rotorua,