'Justice' system makes me sad and mad!!

13567

Comments

  • 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.

    So you think life is cheap too.

    Fair enough.
  • Top_Girl
    Top_Girl Posts: 1,211
    First Post First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    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
    Malthusian Posts: 10,898
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    Top_Girl wrote: »
    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.

    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
    Malthusian Posts: 10,898
    First Anniversary First Post Name Dropper Photogenic
    Forumite
    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
    janninew Posts: 3,781 Forumite
    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?
    :heart2: Newborn Thread Member :heart2:

    'Children reinvent the world for you.' - Susan Sarandan
  • seashore22
    seashore22 Posts: 1,443
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    Malthusian wrote: »
    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".

    Thank you so much for that post. My feelings exactly.
  • Lambyr
    Lambyr Posts: 437
    First Anniversary First Post Combo Breaker
    Forumite
    edited 5 December 2017 at 11:01AM
    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.

    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.
    She would always like to say,
    Why change the past when you can own this day?
  • Lambyr wrote: »
    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.
    Rather well put.
  • MataNui
    MataNui Posts: 1,075 Forumite
    Top_Girl wrote: »
    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*

    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
    Fireflyaway Posts: 2,766
    First Anniversary First Post
    Forumite
    So you think life is cheap too.

    Fair enough.

    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.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 342.5K Banking & Borrowing
  • 249.9K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.4K Spending & Discounts
  • 234.6K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 607.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 172.8K Life & Family
  • 247.4K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.8K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards