'Justice' system makes me sad and mad!!

Fireflyaway

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.

IAmWales

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

Yes of course you can't force an answer but I think it should somehow go against you if you don't.

maman

This case has been widely covered in the media. I believe there is a lack of evidence because of police errors.

elsien

Fireflyaway wrote: »

Yes of course you can't force an answer but I think it should somehow go against you if you don't.

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.

IAmWales

Fireflyaway wrote: »

Yes of course you can't force an answer but I think it should somehow go against you if you don't.

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

I believe the Court hearing is an inquest into the child's death and not criminal proceedings.

PeacefulWaters

Fireflyaway wrote: »

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?

Life is cheap but you support the death penalty?

Ames

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?

lika_86

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.

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?

Fireflyaway wrote: »

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?

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.

Fireflyaway wrote: »

Then....even if found guilty of terrible crimes, offenders are jailed for such short amounts of time. The re offending rate is high too.

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.

Fireflyaway wrote: »

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.

What is your alternative to 'burdening the tax payer'? The death sentence?!

onomatopoeia99

Fireflyaway wrote: »

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?

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.