'Justice' system makes me sad and mad!!
Comments
-
Isn't this thread more at home on the Discussion Time board?0
-
Fireflyaway wrote: »Look at Levi Bellfield. Give me a reason why you think he should be housed in prison at our expense? Or Ian Huntley? Are these people worth forgiving and rehabilitating? I think not.
Because the alternative is to leave ourselves open to the most heinous miscarriage of justice - the termination of innocent life by the state. And in that, we must consider the greater impact. For example, the prosecutor that made the case against Tim Evans, the jury who found him guilty, the judge that sentenced him to die. All available evidence points to this being a miscarriage of justice; Tim Evans, in all probability, was innocent.
It's easy to allow our emotions to dictate what we consider justice because we do so without considering the wider implications. Everyone who played a part in the death of Tim Evans, and indeed in the other miscarriages of justice, had to live with the knowledge that they had made a grave error from which there was no coming back.
According to Psychology Today, 31% of US corrections officers who carried out executions suffer with PTSD; even those who have no knowledge of having been part of a miscarriage of justice. The same study revealed that 81% of female jurors and 18% of male jurors regretted their decision. 62.5% of female jurors, and 32.5% of male jurors sought counselling following a trial that resulted in a death sentence. How much more suffering could be inflicted on these people if it transpired they had gotten it all wrong?
Is a financial argument in favour of retribution for the suffering inflicted by the accused adequate enough to justify the further suffering that may well be inflicted on those who are involved in the case?
"Proven beyond doubt" isn't recognised in law because if it were, it would make convictions "beyond reasonable doubt" unsafe. Therefore, we either reinstate the death penalty and accept the risks that come with it, or we can instead accept that while our hearts might favour one course of action, there is a less potentially destructive course that could be taken and one in which mistakes are, to some extent at least, fixable.She would always like to say,
Why change the past when you can own this day?0 -
Actually the current 'victim-based' approach is an insult to justice....Fireflyaway wrote: »Just been reading about a case where it seems pretty clear that a man did something really terrible to his young child which resulted in her death. Wont mention details as its probably not allowed. - The case your reading about is based upon comments an inquest judge made. There was no criminal conviction. So the chap is being judged by the media.
Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! - because 1: you cant force someone to speak (right to silence) and 2: Would it be any different if he said yes or no? If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence? - not necessarily. There are lots of cases where people talked themselves into false convictions.
Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too. - They are sentenced based upon sentencing guidelines. Which specifically do you disagree with? Arguably re-offending is a result of the near impossibility for rehabilitation - mostly through inappropriate use of DBS checks
As a supposedly leading nation, why is life so cheap here in the UK? If someone is guilty of a disgusting crime, why burden the tax payer housing and feeding them? - Is he guilty? As in - has he been found guilty in court?
I'm truly happy we have fair trials - that's good. The alternative is worse than any crime imaginable. etc but I do think the overall system is way too soft. Its an insult to victims and the tax payer.0 -
You've answered your own question.....I know the case and don't understand why he hasn't been arrested yet? I know the police have lost vital evidence but they do have evidence, somebody hurt and murdered that baby, there aren't that many suspects that it can be, his DNA was found on her genitals. Nothing makes sense to me. Can't he be charged and the jury will then decide on the evidence they do have?
You really think he'd get a fair trial now?0 -
A person has the right not to incriminate themselves, however by doing so, one runs the risk of drawing attention to the fact they are not willing to answer.
My guess in this case (the one that's in the news re: daughter and not willing to answer any questions), he's guilty and is remaining silent because the police haven't got enough evidence to prosecute without him 'dropping himself in it'. Legally, he is allowed to stop talking as he probably has the potential to incriminate himself. Any lawyer would advise him to do that.0 -
It's what you alluded to.Fireflyaway wrote: »That's a very simplistic view.
It's a view I've held previously. But for the reasons Lambyr listed above I no longer do. Eye for an eye retribution is backwards.Personally I don't think you can value all life the same. If an innocent child is raped, abused, murdered etc then yes, the death penalty is suitable in my eyes. That perpetrators life isn't of much value to anyone.
Even adding the word "reasonable" in there doesn't work for me. I've seen too many miscarriages of justice over the years.I'm not saying let's hang every criminal. Only for certain crimes and only where its proven beyond doubt.
It isn't for me to forgive. But I don't believe state sponsored killing of criminals is the way a civilised society should operate.Look at Levi Bellfield. Give me a reason why you think he should be housed in prison at our expense? Or Ian Huntley? Are these people worth forgiving and rehabilitating? I think not.0 -
PeacefulWaters wrote: »It isn't for me to forgive. But I don't believe state sponsored killing of criminals is the way a civilised society should operate.
Couldn't agree more.
I could absolutely understand being able to kill someone in the heat of the moment when they are threatening my family, but I don't think revenge (which is what capital punishment) is going to help anyone in the long run. In my personal opinion it makes society a poorer place and we all suffer for it.0 -
I venture to point out that a justice system that doesn't sometimes irritate, upset, antagonise, disappoint, frustrate and/ or let down simply doesn't - and can't - exist... her atop the Old Bailey has a blindfold wrapped around her peepers.
And in this particular case, upsetting as it undoubtedly is, justiceis not being sort - yet - just the facts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquest0 -
Why am I not surprised the link to the news report was from the Daily Mail....I can offer no resistance, I can offer no respite
Wake me when conflict is over,
I aim for a peaceful life,
Wake me up when the fury is ended
I like living a peaceful life0 -
Fireflyaway wrote: »I'm not saying let's hang every criminal. Only for certain crimes and only where its proven beyond doubt.
Beyond doubt? So you believe we should have the death penalty as long as it's never used. No-one is ever guilty beyond doubt, even if they are caught standing over the bed with the knife in their hands covered in blood, and make a full confession. It is quite common for people to confess to crimes they haven't committed and be caught in situations that look terrible to an outsider even though they haven't done anything wrong. The phrase is "beyond reasonable doubt".0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 607.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173K Life & Family
- 247.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards