tis interesting because it is this case we have the lefties going yes its fine and the right wing [ well Zullu anyway] getting all human rights on us 😯

what is the opposite of PC gone mad anyone ?

I was just thinking that myself. 🙂

what is the opposite of PC gone mad anyone ?

Common Sense?

Should a guilty person walk free, if it transpires later that there is in fact substantial evidence against them? I don’t think so.

It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer – Blackstone

It is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer

Isn’t that more to do with the concept of “reasonable doubt” though?

DD – I simply maintain my position, that we mess around with the basic tenets of law and ignore the lessons of the past at our great peril.

Isnt putting witches in ponds to see if they float or sink a basic tenet of law?

DD – I simply maintain my position, that we mess around with the basic tenets of law and ignore the lessons of the past at our great peril.

I’m with you on that Zulu – and I’m undecided on the double jeopardy if I’m honest. But when new strong evidence surfaces as a result of previously unavailable technology, it’s hard not to see why it should not be taken into account. Like I said, I’m undecided – and I think I’ll be staying on the fence, through my own indecision.

Deadly surely double jeopardy can only be a good thing. Look at all the cold case reviews jobs where convictions are happening after 20-40 years due to progressions with DNA and the like. Is that not a good thing?

Thing is, where does it stop? how many times should the Government be allowed to prosecute you? the risk is that they just keep on putting someone back in court until they get the “right” verdict.

My understanding about the origins of double jeopardy, is that thats exactly what used to go on, keep putting someone up until they eventually got convicted – how do we protect from that happening? Seeing the way we’ve moved heaven and earth to put suspected terrorists behind bars, I don’t think you can rule out the possibility of it ever happening – just like we never thought that we’d see people being imprisoned for long periods without ever having committed a crime 🙁

You have to have substantial new evidence before a prosecution before a court. So DNA that wasn’t possible 20 years ago is new evidence and substantial. I don’t know that many DJ cases that haven’t hinged on DNA evidence (there may well be though as I don’t follow them all). I agree about not putting someome through it time and again for the “right” verdict, btu this rarley happens, the CPS do not make charging decisions on a wing and a prayer IME.

I dont have a huge issue with Double jeopardy tbh if new evidence comes to light that offers ne evidence to proves someoene’s guilt then I dont see how we are serving justice by not charging these people with the crime tbh.
Some of the other stuff you mention – trial by jury for example – is much more of an issue tbh. A perverse verdict is a juries [societies] right and is a check by the people on the state for example

I imagine it is most likely to happen in a case of a ” have a go heroes”

I think the Law should reflect the society it serves. In certain contexts, DJ is outdated considering technology we have today, surely? As Munque-Chique points out.

But DJ was introduced to protect those who stood trial from the interests of agencies other than the Law. IE; if a judge returned a not guilty verdict, the courts could not be ordered by any government or head of state to re-try a defendant, just because the verdict did not suit them. Cos of course one risk would be that if a court said ‘not enough evidence to convict’, then such ‘evidence’ might then materialise (IE possibly be fabricated) which would help to convict someone who’s already stood trial and bin acquitted. Or something like that anyway.

And it was about protecting the finality and absoluteness of the decision of the court. Important, and should not be dismissed lightly.

But I’m not sure if amending that Law has ensured our slide into Barbarism though, despite the cries of the conservatives.

Trouble with the Reasonable Doubt thing is that advances in technology have actually produced evidence which provides that reasonable doubt of a person’s innocence.

It’s a tricky one for sure.

Indeed Junky 🙂 – I’m just really concerned at the potential “laws of unintended consequences” that we could see down the line when we throw these basic tenets on the scrap pile as outdated anachronisms of a time gone by…

Just as a wild example, remember Barry George – imagine if they went through all that, he was cleared, and they suddenly said, “oh, here’s some new evidence” and tried to prosecute him all over again, or Colin stagg? Think of the way it could be abused if the police were convinced they had “got their man”…

Other problem you have with juries and reasonable doubt, is people watch TV programmes such as CSI and then can’t differentiate between TV and reality, hence some of the comments in the Judges summing up. I know of a court case where jurors where asking questions about finger prints on something. They didn’t understand (and they even said this) why it wasn’t like CSI!! Where you had a tiny teeny finger tip on some paper and why the police couldnt’ seize it, scan it and create a full FP profile which produced a hit on the database! I mean FFS, defendant was found not guilty (okay there may have been other factors involved) but potentially there is your reasonable doubt! I know of cases where jurors can’t understand why there AREN’T forensics, as CSI there is ALWAYS forensics. It’s a nightmare with television trying to bring “normal” members of the public back into reality.

Next you’ll be blaming The Bill for people’s perfectly reasonable expectations that every crime should be solved within an hour.

Thing is, where does it stop? how many times should the Government be allowed to prosecute you?

Flip the coin. How many times should you be able to appeal against conviction? I suspect the answers to both questions should be the same, and the opportunity to revisit weighed by the same criteria.

I’ve no idea where they found an impartial jury !!! I remember Britains biggest selling daily, putting their pictures on the front page with the headline calling them murders sue us if you dare. I’ve spent the last 16/17 years being told off their guilt.

The answer to this is simple – not everyone remembers what happened 15 years ago and not everyone believes what they read in the paper.

Juries are remarkably sensible en masse. Even if they think the defendants are

swaggering low-lifes

they understand that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re guilty of the crime they’ve been charged with.

I can certainly believe that the defendants are knuckledraggers but that doesn’t mean they are guilty of the crime

Given the jury are out it is perhaps best not to speculate about their verdict on a public forum.

There’s no possible interference with the proceedings – especially when all the evidence, arguments and directions have been presented to the jury. You can speculate all you like.

They’ve got subsequent form haven’t they? (I.e post SL stabbing).

They’ve got subsequent form haven’t they? (I.e post SL stabbing).

Shouldn’t make any difference for the jury, this type of info is only useful for public lynch mobs.

Them having previous form is relvant, hence the bad character evidence that was presented to the jury of them being racist thugs when they were filmed covertly. Previous form (especially a stabbing) would be incredibly relevant.

Them having previous form is relvant, hence the bad character evidence that was presented to the jury of them being racist thugs when they were filmed covertly. Previous form (especially a stabbing) would be incredibly relevant.

What you lot need is a nice not proven verdict like more enlightened legal systems use….

If they do go down, I hope they are guilty, and vice versa.

I agree and couldn’t add to that without being privy to the same evidence as the jury and even then I doubt the picture would be that clear. I don’t envy them in the slightest…

Love the Mum popping up with a last minute alibi though…..

So all this time later you have a moment of new clarity.

then she failed to do it well enough and could not be certain he was there [ at home] at the time of the murder…I would not like to suggest she was too stupid to lie well as i dont have enough evidence to support such an allegation.

They’ve got subsequent form haven’t they? (I.e post SL stabbing).

Possibly. That just means they’re guilty of that. It might well also mean they’re scumbags – although, “to be fair”, even if you went into it as an innocent normal person, your chances of coming out a well-adjusted young man after being accused of murder three times (and, in one case, being the son of a drug dealer) are pretty marginal.

Luckily, being a dickhead is not yet a criminal offence. 😉

Given the jury are out it is perhaps best not to speculate about their verdict on a public forum.

Why?

Is the jury likely to read STW?

Zulu-Eleven –
Member
Thing is, where does it stop? how many times should the Government be allowed to prosecute you? the risk is that they just keep on putting someone back in court until they get the “right” verdict.

Is this actually happening?

Erm…no.

Classic scare mongering, have a gold star.

Indeed. Saying

the risk is that they just keep on putting someone back in court until they get the “right” verdict.

is complete nonsense because that’s not what the law allows.