Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Fireflyaway
    • By Fireflyaway 4th Dec 17, 7:59 PM
    • 1,355Posts
    • 1,373Thanks
    Fireflyaway
    'Justice' system makes me sad and mad!!
    • #1
    • 4th Dec 17, 7:59 PM
    'Justice' system makes me sad and mad!! 4th Dec 17 at 7:59 PM
    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.
    Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?
    Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.
    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?
    I'm truly happy we have fair trials etc but I do think the overall system is way too soft. Its an insult to victims and the tax payer.
Page 1
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 4th Dec 17, 8:06 PM
    • 1,843 Posts
    • 3,825 Thanks
    IAmWales
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:06 PM
    • #2
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:06 PM
    You can't force someone to answer questions, that would be physically impossible. However juries do tend to draw their own conclusions from a defendant's behaviour in court.

    Difficult to comment further without knowing the case. Why can't you post a link?
    • Fireflyaway
    • By Fireflyaway 4th Dec 17, 8:09 PM
    • 1,355 Posts
    • 1,373 Thanks
    Fireflyaway
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:09 PM
    • #3
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:09 PM
    Yes of course you can't force an answer but I think it should somehow go against you if you don't.
    • maman
    • By maman 4th Dec 17, 8:11 PM
    • 17,135 Posts
    • 102,468 Thanks
    maman
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:11 PM
    • #4
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:11 PM
    This case has been widely covered in the media. I believe there is a lack of evidence because of police errors.
    • elsien
    • By elsien 4th Dec 17, 8:13 PM
    • 15,422 Posts
    • 38,718 Thanks
    elsien
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:13 PM
    • #5
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:13 PM
    Yes of course you can't force an answer but I think it should somehow go against you if you don't.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    It does. Juries draw their own conclusion as to why people choose not to answer.

    Having said that, as a general rule there are other reasons why people choose/are advised not to answer questions. They may be innocent but have an unfortunate manner/way of presenting themselves which leads people to make alternative judgements about them - the parent who is traumatised but comes across as cold or uncaring, for example.
    It's not as simple as saying if you're innocent then you have nothing to hide - too many cases have demonstrated otherwise.
    Last edited by elsien; 04-12-2017 at 8:20 PM.
    All shall be well, and all shall be well, and all manner of things shall be well.

    Pedant alert - it's could have, not could of.
    • IAmWales
    • By IAmWales 4th Dec 17, 8:15 PM
    • 1,843 Posts
    • 3,825 Thanks
    IAmWales
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:15 PM
    • #6
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:15 PM
    Yes of course you can't force an answer but I think it should somehow go against you if you don't.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    It does. The jury make their own minds up as to why the defendant is remaining silent. The defendant's conduct is also taken into account in sentencing should they be found guilty.
    • esmy
    • By esmy 4th Dec 17, 8:31 PM
    • 871 Posts
    • 2,863 Thanks
    esmy
    • #7
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:31 PM
    • #7
    • 4th Dec 17, 8:31 PM
    I believe the Court hearing is an inquest into the child's death and not criminal proceedings.
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 4th Dec 17, 9:48 PM
    • 7,300 Posts
    • 9,043 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    • #8
    • 4th Dec 17, 9:48 PM
    • #8
    • 4th Dec 17, 9:48 PM
    Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.
    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?
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    Life is cheap but you support the death penalty?
    • Ames
    • By Ames 4th Dec 17, 10:33 PM
    • 16,583 Posts
    • 29,011 Thanks
    Ames
    • #9
    • 4th Dec 17, 10:33 PM
    • #9
    • 4th Dec 17, 10:33 PM
    It's like that because everyone is equal before the law.

    This time it's someone who seems to be clearly guilty. Next time it could be someone who's innocent. If you're going to start deciding the result before the inquest then what's the point of the law?
    Unless I say otherwise 'you' means the general you not you specifically.

    Reading the alphabet in 2017. 21/100
    ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ
    • lika_86
    • By lika_86 4th Dec 17, 10:54 PM
    • 1,190 Posts
    • 4,245 Thanks
    lika_86
    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.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    How is it 'pretty clear' when you have presumably only read reports in the paper and have not been privy to any of the details?

    Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    This goes back to the fundamental maxim that one is innocent until PROVEN guilty. This means that the state has to PROVE your guilt. You do not have to prove your innocence. If the state cannot PROVE to a jury beyond all reasonable doubt that you have committed a crime then you should not be convicted of it.

    Therefore, a defendant is under no obligation to say anything or do anything positive in their defence. Personally I believe it is right that that should be the case.

    Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    Another belief gleaned from sensational news stories? There are sentencing guidelines which set out the factors that are taken into account when sentencing and help set out appropriate sentences. In most cases which the papers make a big deal of as being lenient, there are often heavy factors in mitigation which are conveniently not reported in the papers because they don't fit the narrative/propaganda.

    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?
    I'm truly happy we have fair trials etc but I do think the overall system is way too soft. Its an insult to victims and the tax payer.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    What is your alternative to 'burdening the tax payer'? The death sentence?!
    • onomatopoeia99
    • By onomatopoeia99 4th Dec 17, 11:36 PM
    • 3,623 Posts
    • 7,975 Thanks
    onomatopoeia99
    Anyway, said person apparently refused to answer questions put to him in court. Why do we allow this?! If you are innocent surely you would answer in as much detail possible to convince everyone of your innocence?
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    It is an inquest in a coroner's court, not a trial in a criminal court. There is no defendant, there is no question of guilt or innocence.

    You have an entire pack of dogs barking up the wrong tree here.
    INTP, nerd, libertarian and scifi geek.
    Home is where my books are.
    • Batman2017
    • By Batman2017 5th Dec 17, 12:01 AM
    • 58 Posts
    • 48 Thanks
    Batman2017
    why are you not allowed to post details you've read in the media?? that makes no sense!
    • Fireflyaway
    • By Fireflyaway 5th Dec 17, 6:39 AM
    • 1,355 Posts
    • 1,373 Thanks
    Fireflyaway
    Life is cheap but you support the death penalty?
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    Yes in the right circumstances. If its really clear someone has done a terrible crime what's the use in housing them in prison for years or thier entire life? Look at Ian Brady. Must have cost hundreds of thousands to keep him locked up. If someone goes round abusing or murdering kids I think its inexcusable.
    • Fireflyaway
    • By Fireflyaway 5th Dec 17, 6:46 AM
    • 1,355 Posts
    • 1,373 Thanks
    Fireflyaway
    why are you not allowed to post details you've read in the media?? that makes no sense!
    Originally posted by Batman2017
    I don't know for sure what can be posted in terms of discussion if a trial is ongoing that's all. Didn't want the post deleted.
    Here is a link if it helps.

    True this is a coroners inquest not a criminal hearing. Even so.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5143785/Inside-room-Poppi-Worthington-died.html
    • keith969
    • By keith969 5th Dec 17, 7:02 AM
    • 1,265 Posts
    • 887 Thanks
    keith969
    Yes in the right circumstances. If its really clear someone has done a terrible crime what's the use in housing them in prison for years or thier entire life? .
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    Because mistakes are made. For example the Birmingham Six.
    Heaven wasn't built in a day
    • starting_again_in_the_sun
    • By starting_again_in_the_sun 5th Dec 17, 7:57 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    starting_again_in_the_sun
    Just to make you aware, the death penalty costs the tax payer far more than life imprisonment.

    There are problems with the justice system in the UK but your conclusions are flawed. If the recidivism rates are high, more should be invested in rehabilitation.

    I also think it's worth considering his you would want to be treated if you were arrested. No doubt you would want the right to remain silent.

    Lastly, the DM is no longer considered a reliable source of information!
    • seashore22
    • By seashore22 5th Dec 17, 8:00 AM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,489 Thanks
    seashore22
    I don't know for sure what can be posted in terms of discussion if a trial is ongoing that's all. Didn't want the post deleted.
    Here is a link if it helps.

    True this is a coroners inquest not a criminal hearing. Even so.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5143785/Inside-room-Poppi-Worthington-died.html
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    It's not a trial. I do think when you start a thread about the court system and justice that it's important to know what aspect of it you are talking about.

    I also think it's a terrible case and mistakes were certainly made in the early stages, but we have a very good criminal justice system in this country. Not without it's faults, but overall it is fair and just and cautious (as it should be). I would be strongly against the death penalty in this country for many reasons. Some of those reasons:

    Mistakes being made and the innocent being executed.
    The state being used as a killing machine.
    Individuals being asked to participate in killing people.
    Asking juries to decide in cases with a possible death penalty.

    The US has the death penalty in many states and, from what I've seen, it's not something to aspire to. Prisoners sit on death row for decades, so you get the worst of all possible worlds as they still need feeding and a roof over their heads. The cost of constant appeals over those years must be extortionate too. Surely it's inhumane to condemn a man or woman to death and then let them sit in prison for year after year? They themselves may be inhuman, but the state should be better than that and so should we.
    Last edited by seashore22; 05-12-2017 at 8:17 AM.
    • Slinky
    • By Slinky 5th Dec 17, 8:09 AM
    • 4,758 Posts
    • 20,765 Thanks
    Slinky
    Just to make you aware, the death penalty costs the tax payer far more than life imprisonment.
    Originally posted by starting_again_in_the_sun
    And your source for this is............?

    The death penalty costs nothing in this country as, just to make you aware, we have no death penalty.
    • seashore22
    • By seashore22 5th Dec 17, 8:21 AM
    • 741 Posts
    • 1,489 Thanks
    seashore22
    I would also add that I think this is the wrong forum for this. It has nothing to do with marriage or relationships or families. Maybe the discussion forum would be a better fit.
    • starting_again_in_the_sun
    • By starting_again_in_the_sun 5th Dec 17, 8:24 AM
    • 49 Posts
    • 180 Thanks
    starting_again_in_the_sun
    And your source for this is............?

    The death penalty costs nothing in this country as, just to make you aware, we have no death penalty.
    Originally posted by Slinky
    https://www.amnestyusa.org/issues/death-penalty/death-penalty-facts/death-penalty-cost/

    Obviously I wasn't talking about the UK, I presumed in a British forum people would be aware the death penalty didn't exist in the UK (thank goodness) .
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,588Posts Today

8,648Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • RT @mmhpi: REPORT PUBLISHED: We reveal how #regulators of essential services can level the playing field & better support consumers with #m?

  • RT @mmhpi: "I have massive #anxiety about talking to strangers on the phone" - Regulators must improve the accessibility of essential serv?

  • RT @itvMLshow: I know you may be sad that we have no more shows this year BUT you wont have to wait too long for our next LIVE SPECIAL whic?

  • Follow Martin