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
    • 1,375Posts
    • 1,387Thanks
    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 2
    • MataNui
    • By MataNui 5th Dec 17, 8:34 AM
    • 884 Posts
    • 461 Thanks
    MataNui
    FFS. Its not a court where he needs to prove his innocence. Its a coroners inquest. Clearly for whatever reason the police or CPS dont consider that he does have any reason to prove anything so i dont know WTF gives you the right to suggest otherwise.

    OK, so most people would think its a bit suspect that the guy is just sitting there saying 'no comment' or just nothing at all but there are other perfectly reasonable explanations for this. Its the death of his child. No doubt initially the police dragged him in, locked him up for a few nights and treated him like Satan himself before deciding there really wasnt any evidence he did anything wrong. I think after that i would probably also want to tell every lawyer, policeman, judge etc to just go and f*** themselves so wouldnt cooperate any further with any of it.

    Of course, he could also be an evil sack of crap who has just got away with something awful. Problem is trial by the 'offended' masses like yourself isnt much better.
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 5th Dec 17, 9:35 AM
    • 7,315 Posts
    • 9,073 Thanks
    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.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    So you think life is cheap too.

    Fair enough.
    • Top Girl
    • By Top Girl 5th Dec 17, 9:40 AM
    • 1,106 Posts
    • 7,749 Thanks
    Top Girl
    If, God forbid, anything happened to a child of mine, I'd answer anything and everything I was asked, fully and truthfully, in order to try and get to the truth.


    I, and I suspect the majority of people, find it really suspicious if people don't co-operate with those trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened.


    See also McCann, Kate...


    *dons tin hat*
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 5th Dec 17, 9:52 AM
    • 3,466 Posts
    • 5,307 Thanks
    Malthusian
    If, God forbid, anything happened to a child of mine, I'd answer anything and everything I was asked, fully and truthfully, in order to try and get to the truth.
    Originally posted by Top Girl
    If it ever comes to that then for God's sake wait for your solicitor before you make your moral stand.

    The police aren't interested in the truth, all they are interested in is your collar.

    There is a reason our cousins across the pond wrote the right to keep your mouth shut into the Constitution.

    If you are in bits you will say things they can twist against you, and if you are holding it together you will be portrayed as a cold unemotional psychopath. The only thing that can't be misinterpreted is silence. (If anyone asks why you didn't say anything, you say you were in shock, which will be true.)
    • Malthusian
    • By Malthusian 5th Dec 17, 9:58 AM
    • 3,466 Posts
    • 5,307 Thanks
    Malthusian
    See also McCann, Kate...

    *dons tin hat*
    A woman who has had a million weirdo amateur sleuths plus numerous Portugese and English professional detectives all trying to prove that she and her husband murdered her daughter, all of whom have failed to turn up enough evidence to even have them charged, let alone convicted.

    I can't imagine a better example of the need for "innocent until proven guilty".
    • janninew
    • By janninew 5th Dec 17, 10:33 AM
    • 3,796 Posts
    • 7,184 Thanks
    janninew
    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?
    Newborn Thread Member

    'Children reinvent the world for you.' - Susan Sarandan
    • seashore22
    • By seashore22 5th Dec 17, 10:49 AM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,495 Thanks
    seashore22
    A woman who has had a million weirdo amateur sleuths plus numerous Portugese and English professional detectives all trying to prove that she and her husband murdered her daughter, all of whom have failed to turn up enough evidence to even have them charged, let alone convicted.

    I can't imagine a better example of the need for "innocent until proven guilty".
    Originally posted by Malthusian
    Thank you so much for that post. My feelings exactly.
    • Lambyr
    • By Lambyr 5th Dec 17, 10:58 AM
    • 367 Posts
    • 1,653 Thanks
    Lambyr
    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.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    Trouble is, it rarely is really clear as most people are convicted on the basis of the evidence presented against them being enough to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" of their guilt. The number of clear cut cases is minimal.

    And you'll always find people who disagree on what counts as really clear. Some people have been fooled by TV shows into thinking DNA and forensics is foolproof. Yet we've seen in the news how a number of convictions are now considered unsafe due to improper handling and presentation of evidence.

    Paul Neufield, who runs the Innocent Project once said, "Historically, we had a situation where two scientifically illiterate lawyers argue the bonafides of scientific evidence before a scientifically illiterate judge so that 12 scientifically illiterate jurors could decide the weight of that evidence."

    In the United States, many convictions, including those of people now on death row, are unsafe because they used "bite mark" evidence as part of the case against the defendant - a form of forensic science now considered quackery (outside the TV show CSI, of course). Even fingerprints, according to the FBI, could have a false-positive rate as high as 1 in 306. The Amanda Knox case is a fairly recent example of how much of a clusterfudge police can make of DNA evidence.

    Even video evidence can be tampered with, or subject to human error such as misidentification. If I present you with a slightly pixellated image and tell you it is definitely the same person as someone who bears a resemblance nearby, you're likely to believe me because what I'm presenting as evidence seems to confirm the statement.

    So even if you try to reserve the death penalty for where it is really clear, you're still relying on other people's interpretations of clarity. I'd argue in some cases you can't even trust a confession. Tim Evans confessed to murder. It is still more probable that the serial killer he rented a room from did it.

    If you reintroduce the death penalty, you will forever be living with the risk of the state executing somebody innocent. Personally, I feel that is just as abhorrent as the crimes you're executing people for.
    Last edited by Lambyr; 05-12-2017 at 11:01 AM.
    She would always like to say,
    Why change the past when you can own this day?
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 5th Dec 17, 11:00 AM
    • 7,315 Posts
    • 9,073 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    Trouble is, it rarely is really clear as most people are convicted on the basis of the evidence presented against them being enough to convince a jury "beyond reasonable doubt" of their guilt. The number of clear cut cases is minimal.

    And you'll always find people who disagree on what counts as really clear. Some people have been fooled by TV shows into thinking DNA and forensics is foolproof. Yet we've seen in the news how a number of convictions are now considered unsafe due to improper handling and presentation of evidence.

    Paul Neufield, who runs the Innocent Project once said, "Historically, we had a situation where two scientifically illiterate lawyers argue the bonafides of scientific evidence before a scientifically illiterate judge so that 12 scientifically illiterate jurors could decide the weight of that evidence."

    In the United States, many convictions, including those of people now on death row, are unsafe because they used "bite mark" evidence as part of the case against the defendant - a form of forensic science now considered quackery (outside the TV show CSI, of course). Even fingerprints, according to the FBI, could have a false-positive rate as high as 1 in 306. The Amanda Knox case is a fairly recent example of how much of a clusterfudge police can make of DNA evidence.

    Even video evidence can be tampered with, or subject to human error such as misidentification. If I present you with a slightly pixellated image and tell you it is definitely the same person as someone who bears a resemblance nearby, you're likely to believe me because what I'm presenting as evidence seems to confirm the statement.

    So even if you try to reserve the death penalty for where it is really clear, you're still relying on other people's interpretations of clarity. I'd argue in some cases you can't even trust a confession. Tim Evans confessed to murder. It is still more probable that the serial killer he rented a room from did it.

    If you reintroduce the death penalty, you will forever be living with the risk of executing somebody innocent. Personally, I feel that is just as abhorrent as the crimes you're executing people for.
    Originally posted by Lambyr
    Rather well put.
    • MataNui
    • By MataNui 5th Dec 17, 11:35 AM
    • 884 Posts
    • 461 Thanks
    MataNui
    If, God forbid, anything happened to a child of mine, I'd answer anything and everything I was asked, fully and truthfully, in order to try and get to the truth.


    I, and I suspect the majority of people, find it really suspicious if people don't co-operate with those trying to get to the bottom of what actually happened.


    See also McCann, Kate...


    *dons tin hat*
    Originally posted by Top Girl
    Suspicious yes, and the whole thing does stink, but really having the morally outraged shouting about it online stinks even more. He may of already actually told the police everything he knows. He may of told them a dozen times, or two dozen times. Either way for some reason they dont want to pursue it further which means unless/until they do get some other cause to go back to it then its done.

    Also i think you perhaps should watch some of the real crime programs that are so common these days. The police dont ask questions in interviews. They tell you what they think you have done, then you tell them what you did, then they tell you what they think you have done. Repeat until one of you gets bored and breaks. I can imagine whatever interview he had would be enough to make him not want to say anything to anyone.
    • Fireflyaway
    • By Fireflyaway 5th Dec 17, 12:36 PM
    • 1,375 Posts
    • 1,387 Thanks
    Fireflyaway
    So you think life is cheap too.

    Fair enough.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    That's a very simplistic view.

    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.

    I'm not saying let's hang every criminal. Only for certain crimes and only where its proven beyond doubt.

    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.
    • gettingtheresometime
    • By gettingtheresometime 5th Dec 17, 1:04 PM
    • 3,133 Posts
    • 7,318 Thanks
    gettingtheresometime
    Isn't this thread more at home on the Discussion Time board?
    Lloyds OD / Natwest OD / PO CC / Wescott / Argos Card cleared thanks to the 1 debt v 100 day challenge


    Next on the list - JD Williams
    • Lambyr
    • By Lambyr 5th Dec 17, 1:09 PM
    • 367 Posts
    • 1,653 Thanks
    Lambyr
    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.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    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?
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Dec 17, 1:13 PM
    • 1,322 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Comms69
    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.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    Actually the current 'victim-based' approach is an insult to justice....
    • Comms69
    • By Comms69 5th Dec 17, 1:18 PM
    • 1,322 Posts
    • 1,073 Thanks
    Comms69
    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?
    Originally posted by janninew
    You've answered your own question.....




    You really think he'd get a fair trial now?
    • andydownes123
    • By andydownes123 5th Dec 17, 1:32 PM
    • 120 Posts
    • 200 Thanks
    andydownes123
    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.
    • PeacefulWaters
    • By PeacefulWaters 5th Dec 17, 1:58 PM
    • 7,315 Posts
    • 9,073 Thanks
    PeacefulWaters
    That's a very simplistic view.
    Originally posted by Fireflyaway
    It's what you alluded to.

    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.
    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.

    I'm not saying let's hang every criminal. Only for certain crimes and only where its proven beyond doubt.
    Even adding the word "reasonable" in there doesn't work for me. I've seen too many miscarriages of justice over the years.

    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.
    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.
    • seashore22
    • By seashore22 5th Dec 17, 2:14 PM
    • 745 Posts
    • 1,495 Thanks
    seashore22
    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.
    Originally posted by PeacefulWaters
    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.
    • simonineaston
    • By simonineaston 5th Dec 17, 2:24 PM
    • 106 Posts
    • 53 Thanks
    simonineaston
    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/Inquest
    • Philip624
    • By Philip624 5th Dec 17, 2:56 PM
    • 562 Posts
    • 294 Thanks
    Philip624
    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 life
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

3,789Posts Today

8,292Users online

Martin's Twitter