OnePlus 5 review
There are many threads on this section of the forum today wanting to know what to do with
criminals such as pedophiles and the murderers of policemen etc. Many of them are from
the hang them and flog them brigade. What I want to know is what do these people who are
so ready to send criminals to their death suggest we do about those who would inevitability
be found guilty and hung but latter proved to have been innocent. What possible compensation
could make up for such a serious miscarriage of justice.
of Justice in the past.
Men and Women have been hung when they were innocent of the Crime for which they were Tried and Convicted.
There have been cases of Mistaken Identity and also of Lies being told Under Oath.
Would you be prepared to be party to such a thing.
No system can be 100%, juries do and will continue to get some verdicts wrong but they can as has been stated only use the evidence presented before them. Capital punishment, once given, cannot be reversed. Chemical castration would seemingly be ideal but, and there is always a but, the giving of drugs to suppress something can in some cases alter things irreversibly! Get the verdict wrong and an irreversible punishment metred out cannot then be corrected at a later date. Think very carefully before advocating punishments that have the potential for being irreversible to what may be an innocent person.
Juries have got it wrong in the past - this is not as likely to happen today in my opinion given the advances in forensics, DNA etc, and the skill of appeal lawyers. Also the skill of investigative journalists.
I don't consider myself to be from the "hang them and flog them" brigade but neither am I from the wooly liberal protect human rights at the expense of victims brigade either - we have to find somewhere in the middle, but this will never happen. Lawyers are making too much money from Legal aid and have huge influence and power.
I believe in Human rights but see the need to sometimes have rules and laws that ensure society is protected from evil people, who can hide easily behind human rights laws and abuse them.
'Juries have got it wrong in the past - this is not as likely to happen today in my opinion given the advances in forensics, DNA etc, and the skill of appeal lawyers. Also the skill of investigative journalists.'
I am afraid that you are so wrong to be off the scale...you appear to have forgotten the recent cases of women accused of murdering their children by overdosing them with salt and jailed on the supposed evidence of a police expert who was later shown to be a complete fool/numpty.
Often the reason is that a lawyer is particularly persuasive, and convinces the jurors that they should ignore compelling evidence, but often it's simply that the jurors aren't the sharpest knives in the box, and are incapable of making the right assessment, based on the evidence presented.
The jury system is flawed, but it's what we have until something better comes along.....which isn't likely to happen anytime soon. There's a strong body of opinion that says we should have professional jurors - people who are experienced in observing court procedures, and in weighing evidence - but we're not likely to adopt such a system because it, too is deeply flawed.
That since she was released from jail, her marriage broke down and she has committed suicide.
If my memory of this is correct, we should all be ashamed, even though we weren't, in any way, directly responsible.
I thinking you are referring to Sally Clarke who was convicted of murdering her children on the say so of a now discredited paediatrician.
She had the conviction overturned and has since died.
Surely that case was flawed, no case should ever rely on the expert testimony on "one" expert - it should be backed up by another independent expert. In this case the fact that expert was a "complete fool/numpty" must not have been very evident to the defence - if he was that bad the defence should have found it easy to discredit him.
Persuasive lawyers are part of the reason Juries get it wrong, as are easily led jurors. The judge is there to watch out for this and advise juries if he thinks something is amiss is he not?
The fact that lawyers are forced to defend their clients even although they suspect they are guilty also does not help, although I cannot think of any way around this one. Some of the worst criminals have a lot of money and can hire the very best in the legal profession, and they can run rings round the prosecution.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.