QT last night - Will Self - what a fool

StevieJ

StevieJ wrote: »

Looks similar to the Green Mile, here is a summary of that doc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqhdYMnB6gA

Although I don't think any documentary is as powerful as this one, the crew were allowed into the court to film a trial to show how the justice system works. The court found three youths guilty of horrific murders, doc makers started to think wait a minute in no way have these guys been proved guilty, they wanted to come back for the appeal but were not allowed into the court room but they made a follow up film anyway.
Subsequently appears that the three may be not guilty but still are held in prison (from 1993).
The frightening thing about this was the fact that the doc makers did not pick the trial it was picked by the authorities (prsumably they thought it was an open and shut case) how many other trial out of the vision of the general public have been like this?

I saw the film/documentary on tv a few years ago.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/

Not only is it possible that justice wasn't done in that court room it also meant that the guilty may have been allowed to walk free.

never-in-doubt

moggylover wrote: »

I admit to a further degree of hypocrisy in my beliefs as well because there is a part of me that ALWAYS wants to go off on one regarding kiddy fiddlers and rapists, but I do try very hard not to because I don't see it as productive:o (or intelligent:o) as it is just a gut reaction.

I dunno, this is one area where capital punishment should be reintroduced - or at least they should have their bits chopped off - once a kiddy fiddler, always a kiddy fiddler. :mad::mad:

Just my humble opinion......

moggylover

Really2 wrote: »

Not that I want one (death penalty) but if the legal system went down that route could they not do a death row type incarceration (say 10-15 years in jail) and retrials allowed on new data that could prove innocence .

Most probably not fool prof and completely impractical but the only real way to avoid wrong conviction would be open up the time to prove innocence/ appeal.

Incarceration is the way forward IMHO but I presume the right wing side of thing is how do you get people who recommit serious crime down to 0.00%.

I presume for every wrong murder conviction there would be not far off as many murderers who go on to commit serious crimes after release.

This thread I a tin of worms, I wish I never posted in.
I think from my point of view both stand points of right wing and left wing have faults but both are so far apart a happy medium is impossible.

Unless life term meant life Incarceration perhaps. (that would be my preferred punishment TBH)

Don't personally think that is a "right wing aim", I think that is the "aim" across all parties. Just don't think agreement is easy to form on HOW we go about that.

BTW, I have many lovely right wing friends who are equally opposed to the death penalty and revenge system law as I am:D The dilemma crosses political boundaries.

moggylover

StevieJ wrote: »

It is like discussing religion with The Reverend Paisley :eek:

:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:


I spit my tea all over the 'puter screen:o. Warn me when you have a classic like that waiting in future:D

moggylover

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i am one of the most reasonable people on here.

Quite the comedian as well:D

Really2

moggylover wrote: »

Don't personally think that is a "right wing aim", I think that is the "aim" across all parties. Just don't think agreement is easy to form on HOW we go about that.

TBH I never said it was an "aim" but I presume the case for pro-death penalty would be the opposite to the argument for not having it. (focusing on stopping re-offending instead of looking at the guilty/not guilty factor)

moggylover

never-in-doubt wrote: »

Frank. by any chance? Or coincidence :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Niddy, one of them was a 19 year old lad (about 24 years ago) who asked the judge to consider that only 50% of his stash was being quoted in the case against him;):eek:.

The other was attacked by another guy and fought back. Unfortunately, he didn't stop hitting when the attacker was "subdued":eek:

I also had a fairly close aquaintance who went down for murder. He was my best friends husband and decided to kill her when she wanted a divorce in 1991:( He got two years, on the grounds of diminished responsibility and I DO have great difficulty in forgiving him in view of the pre-meditated manipulation apparent to those of us that knew them. Would not want him topped though: that would be too easy to be honest.:o

never-in-doubt

moggylover wrote: »

The other was attacked by another guy and fought back. Unfortunately, he didn't stop hitting when the attacker was "subdued":eek:

The above quote is very similar to that of Frank. He battered the racists and got sent down - that's about right for our legal justice system! :o:o

lostinrates

StevieJ wrote: »

Although I don't think any documentary is as powerful as this one, the crew were allowed into the court to film a trial to show how the justice system works. The court found three youths guilty of horrific murders, doc makers started to think wait a minute in no way have these guys been proved guilty, they wanted to come back for the appeal but were not allowed into the court room but they made a follow up film anyway.
Subsequently appears that the three may be not guilty but still are held in prison (from 1993).
The frightening thing about this was the fact that the doc makers did not pick the trial it was picked by the authorities (prsumably they thought it was an open and shut case) how many other trial out of the vision of the general public have been like this?

I saw the film/documentary on tv a few years ago.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0117293/

Not only is it possible that justice wasn't done in that court room it also meant that the guilty may have been allowed to walk free.

steviej, all I can say is that I have seen this myself, often...and I still think our court system is better than many, many others. It has significant faults we need to address, but the one size fits all approach doesn't work IMO. I've seen a court (judge prosecution and defense) tie itself in knots trying to help a vulnerable accused found not guilty, but ironically, this released the accused into more vulnerable condition than had they been found guilty.

IMO, and without leading to vigilanti-ism we need to take responsibility ourselves jmore for ensuring justice in our own society....thinking about how we way people and chose service providers, what we chose not to turn a blind eye to, and perhaps extending ourselves to help people more often. All this would improve day to day quality of life for many in the longer term, not least from renewed bonds of social cohesion, and less wasted money.

I agree with moggy, these are problems of the right an the left...we all wan to live in a good place with good people and be good....its just how we get there ....

chucky

The_White_Horse wrote: »

i am one of the most reasonable people on here.

and this is why you are my all-time favourite poster on here :T