Home Politics & Debate

Justice...?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Two 'Guilty' of Lawrence Murder

Many of you will be too young to remember this murder but finally it seems that some justice had been served. For once I'd going to commend the Daily Mail for their campaign, for once they used their power for good.

NB even though parts of it were misguided, possibly contempt of court and there is the whole racism issue which surrounds the paper...

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whilst I believe justice has been done, and glad to see this drawn to a close; I do wonder if people in this day and age would consider justice to have been done if hypothetically there was irrefutable evidence proving the accused innocence.

    Like I said I'm glad that there has been closure to this case, but it from some of the things I have been reading, it seems that (not necessarily related to this case) the media & general public don't seem to see justice as being done if someone is found innocent.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly or possibly the removal of the centuries old double jeopardy rule which stops the state continually trying you for the same offence was much, much more important.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    For once I'd going to commend the Daily Mail for their campaign, for once they used their power for good.

    NB even though parts of it were misguided, possibly contempt of court and there is the whole racism issue which surrounds the paper...



    How can you though? The Mail are even going as far as saying they're the ones responsible for Police reform! What a load of bollocks. The only reason you're congratulating the Mail is because they actually called this one. They did exactly the same thing with Chris Jeffries who was totally innocent.
    Despite what the mail thinks, and despite the one good news story, trial by media is not a force for good.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So, Dobson sentenced to Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure with a minimum tariff of 15 years and 2 months and Noris also sentenced to Detention at Her Majesty’s Pleasure but with a minimum tariff of 14 years.

    If you're interested you can read the judge's sentencing remarks (Which explain how those sentences wer arrived at and what they mean) here
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Possibly or possibly the removal of the centuries old double jeopardy rule which stops the state continually trying you for the same offence was much, much more important.

    This.

    I'm shedding no tears at the thought of those two scumbags spending a long long time in prison. But I really don't like the abolition of the double jeopardy rule; now the law is that the state can continually try you until they get the verdict they want. There's no protection from repeated vexatious prosecutions- a second trial can occur if there's "new evidence", nothing more than that.

    These two men are scum, but they are scum who were acquitted of murder. That should have been the end of the matter. There's no ethical merit in repeatedly trying them. They were acquitted due to police racism and incompetence, that isn't a good enough reason to let the police have a second stab at them ten years later.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I should also say that there seems little chance of a fair trial given that they were named in the MacPherson report, headlined in a national newspaper and the video of them shouting racial epitaths whilst playying with knives has probably been seen by half the country.

    Yeah they probably were pieces of shit and I am sure they did it, but on the case as reported in the media (and as I wasn't sitting in the court that's all I have to go on) if I was being fair I'd say there was enough reasonable doubt given the risk of evidence contamination (and the fact that everyone seems to acknowledge is was a slipshod initial investigation adds to risk that evidence was not properly managed).
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Whowhere wrote: »
    How can you though?

    Because, as you mentioned, they were correct and they didn't just let the issue lie. They took a risk and, for once, were spot on. They kept the issue in the public domain. NB I added caveats ;)
    They did exactly the same thing with Chris Jeffries who was totally innocent.

    The Mail headline said that they were murderers and should feel free to sue if not. Same thing with Jeffries, who did sue and won. I don't think that trial by media is a force for good, I don't think that they should ignore obvious miscarriages of justice either. Unless you are also arguing that the Birmingham 6 should still be inside, it was journalism that helped free them too.

    As for double jeopardy, I'm a little less black/white on that issue. I can see it's benefits (as with this case) but I can also see that it could be used to continually try someone...
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I can see the benefits of it, not just this case but "cold cases" from when forensic evidence simply wasn't as good. People who were acquitted 20 years ago for sex crimes, as an example, probably wouldn't be now with the improvements in forensics.

    I'm just really not comfortable with the idea that someone can be acquitted of murder (for whatever reason) and then be tried again ten years later for the same crime. A jury of their peers found them innocent and, whilst the jury were probably wrong, that's a problem with the police investigation and prosecution rather than anything else. I don't think it is fair to leave it hanging over someone like that, no matter how odious they are.
Sign In or Register to comment.