View Single Post
12-18-2013, 02:44 PM
Provolone & The Neck
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: Isle of Man
Posts: 17,898
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Originally Posted by CanadianFlyer88 View Post
People don't go in front of a jury of their peers in all cases. Many times a judge will be the only person delivering a verdict.
Yes that is accurate, but you have a right to a trial by jury if you are facing jail time, the NHL equivalent would be suspension.

There is no "burden of proof" because there are cameras everywhere. If the games were not televised and not played in front of several thousand viewers in-person, Shanahan's job would be significantly different. During the meetings, Shanahan also allows the player to discuss his actions (though that may not have any bearing on the ultimate decision).
What do cameras being everywhere have to do with the burden of proof? The burden proof is referring to what the state (Shanahan) would have to show in order to get a guilty verdict (suspension). In the NHL scenario, there is nothing to prove. It is whatever Shanahan thinks it is. If he thinks it is illegal, it is illegal for whatever reasons Shanahan says it is.

Are we really having a discussion about the difference between the legal system and the NHL? The bottom line is, I think that the NHL should not give out harsher punishments for hits that result in injury or lighter punishments for hits that do not. An illegal hit is an illegal hit. If a hit that injures Player A gets Player B five games, why should a comparable hit that doesn't injure Player C get Player D only one game?

DrinkFightFlyers is offline   Reply With Quote