|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 16, 2017 10:46:20 GMT
The same exists in our legal a defendant should have access to a Defense lawyer no matter how heinous their crimes our, it's the price we have to pay to be a civilised society. It would be easy and satisfying to say that someone like Harold Shipman or the Wests should not have a fair trial, but it's not about how bad they are, it's about us not dragging ourselves even one small big to their levels. I agree they should have someone legal explain how deep in the mire they are. Where I disagree is when that "defence" lawyer spends most of the fee working on say a legal loophole to get the defendant off. I return to the case when my own father was investigating a burglary where the crim had worn gloves but had left the torch at the scene... No Fingerprints at all. Except when my Father opened the torch and took fingerprints off the batteries... Now on to a defence lawyer who tries to argue with the3 fact that that torch may have been owned by the crim but how can you be SURE that someone else hadnt "borrowed" it at some point?.. In truth, when presented with the torch, and being interviewed under caution, when the torch was opened in front of him and "Can you explain how your fingerprints were found on the batteries", the crim 'fessed up "you got me copper, yeah, it was me" Having been caught and having some of the stolen property on him wasnt much of a case for a defence anyway, he had claimed "I found them in a bush"... But his boots replicating exact footprints at the scene, well, some clever lawyer may have argued he washed windows, or have some other "excuse" to argue.... But should we allow that?. If a Crim is caught dead to rights holding the smoking gun and fesses up "Yeah it was me" during the arrest, and "the whole world" KNOWS it was him/her/whoever these days, having a lawyer who then persuades the crim to try a "Diminished responsibility" plea, purely because its their job to tray everything to get the crim off and have charges dismissed, even when that lawyer is amongst that "Whole world" who knows them to be guilty?.. The basic question should be to the defence lawyer, do you believe them to be innocent or guilty, and that to be asked before the trial. If they say Guilty, then they be allowed to refuse to take part as they believe they are biased. If the answer is guilty, and they cannot find a lawyer who is willing to suggest they may have doubts, no lawyer may be "Forced" by seniour partners or any other influence, to represent that crim in anything other than basic legal duties to ensure the crim knows exactly what is going on and to ensure that a "far trial" is heard to the best of the courts ability,. In that case, a lawyer that is provided by the courts is there just for the reason of making sure that procedures are in place and no short cuts. When I say that, I am asking for all "Due diligence" In that "proper procedure" is followed at all time when dealing with and sentencing. Basically making sure there are no "comebacks" on the case. Make sure its watertight and air tight before they pass sentence. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 16, 2017 10:57:47 GMT
I echo those feelings, but as mentioned, in the case of Harold Shipman, the Ian Brady, moors murderers, and other like cases, we have to look at society rules, and do we want a "murderer" even if reformed, stalking the streets, under a new identity.
If you have to give someone a new identity to prevent them from harm by long memories, and I cite the kid who killed here, who was found guilty of taking a kid from a shopping centre and killing them nearby on a train track, who was allowed parole when he became an adult, under a new identity.
There was a news blackout on being allowed to publish anything of that new identity, but, "Certain people" with long memories put out a contract on his head.
If the rest of society believe justice has NOT been served, I argue, if its a whole life sentence that is needed, on an ironclad case, there SHOULD be a "Life means life" clause that prevents harm being done to or from the public seeking their own revenge.
On the Moors Murderers, when it was sort of discussed if "she" could be released, the whole of the community she was living in before she was caught were discussing who could take up the contract on her head.
It was the community of [an area], near Manchester, and I grew up around those parts. [..I have removed the exact name for obvious reasons]
If either of them had been released, it would have been "Open season" on their heads.
If it comes to those type of feelings, rather than let that kind of upset be divisive of a whole community, then the death sentence should be considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 17, 2017 13:17:22 GMT
I echo those feelings, but as mentioned, in the case of Harold Shipman, the Ian Brady, moors murderers, and other like cases, we have to look at society rules, and do we want a "murderer" even if reformed, stalking the streets, under a new identity. If you have to give someone a new identity to prevent them from harm by long memories, and I cite the kid who killed here, who was found guilty of taking a kid from a shopping centre and killing them nearby on a train track, who was allowed parole when he became an adult, under a new identity. There was a news blackout on being allowed to publish anything of that new identity, but, "Certain people" with long memories put out a contract on his head. If the rest of society believe justice has NOT been served, I argue, if its a whole life sentence that is needed, on an ironclad case, there SHOULD be a "Life means life" clause that prevents harm being done to or from the public seeking their own revenge. On the Moors Murderers, when it was sort of discussed if "she" could be released, the whole of the community she was living in before she was caught were discussing who could take up the contract on her head. It was the community of [an area], near Manchester, and I grew up around those parts. [..I have removed the exact name for obvious reasons] If either of them had been released, it would have been "Open season" on their heads. If it comes to those type of feelings, rather than let that kind of upset be divisive of a whole community, then the death sentence should be considered. I agree on the "life means life" thing (which it sadly doesn't over here), but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last part... What...? If a criminal "upsets the community enough", we should just go ahead and put them to sleep...? If that is what you're saying, that could be an extremely slippery slope! |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2017 14:44:55 GMT
I echo those feelings, but as mentioned, in the case of Harold Shipman, the Ian Brady, moors murderers, and other like cases, we have to look at society rules, and do we want a "murderer" even if reformed, stalking the streets, under a new identity. If you have to give someone a new identity to prevent them from harm by long memories, and I cite the kid who killed here, who was found guilty of taking a kid from a shopping centre and killing them nearby on a train track, who was allowed parole when he became an adult, under a new identity. There was a news blackout on being allowed to publish anything of that new identity, but, "Certain people" with long memories put out a contract on his head. If the rest of society believe justice has NOT been served, I argue, if its a whole life sentence that is needed, on an ironclad case, there SHOULD be a "Life means life" clause that prevents harm being done to or from the public seeking their own revenge. On the Moors Murderers, when it was sort of discussed if "she" could be released, the whole of the community she was living in before she was caught were discussing who could take up the contract on her head. It was the community of [an area], near Manchester, and I grew up around those parts. [..I have removed the exact name for obvious reasons] If either of them had been released, it would have been "Open season" on their heads. If it comes to those type of feelings, rather than let that kind of upset be divisive of a whole community, then the death sentence should be considered. I agree on the "life means life" thing (which it sadly doesn't over here), but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last part... What...? If a criminal "upsets the community enough", we should just go ahead and put them to sleep...? If that is what you're saying, that could be an extremely slippery slope! I think what he is saying is if a criminal outrages the community enough, having him serve a term and be released really isn't a valid option. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 17, 2017 22:28:00 GMT
I agree on the "life means life" thing (which it sadly doesn't over here), but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last part... What...? If a criminal "upsets the community enough", we should just go ahead and put them to sleep...? If that is what you're saying, that could be an extremely slippery slope! I think what he is saying is if a criminal outrages the community enough, having him serve a term and be released really isn't a valid option. And who gets to decide when the community is "outraged enough"? Sounds to me like this is down to how long a community can hold a grudge and if that's the case, it's a little too subjective for my taste. I've met people who could hold a grudge for two decades over a $100 bill stolen in pure desperation. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 17, 2017 22:34:02 GMT
I think what he is saying is if a criminal outrages the community enough, having him serve a term and be released really isn't a valid option. And who gets to decide when the community is "outraged enough"? Sounds to me like this is down to how long a community can hold a grudge and if that's the case, it's a little too subjective for my taste. I've met people who could hold a grudge for two decades over a $100 bill stolen in pure desperation. yes, it's subjective and illogical. I think the statement was more an observation than an argument. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 18, 2017 10:56:29 GMT
I echo those feelings, but as mentioned, in the case of Harold Shipman, the Ian Brady, moors murderers, and other like cases, we have to look at society rules, and do we want a "murderer" even if reformed, stalking the streets, under a new identity. If you have to give someone a new identity to prevent them from harm by long memories, and I cite the kid who killed here, who was found guilty of taking a kid from a shopping centre and killing them nearby on a train track, who was allowed parole when he became an adult, under a new identity. There was a news blackout on being allowed to publish anything of that new identity, but, "Certain people" with long memories put out a contract on his head. If the rest of society believe justice has NOT been served, I argue, if its a whole life sentence that is needed, on an ironclad case, there SHOULD be a "Life means life" clause that prevents harm being done to or from the public seeking their own revenge. On the Moors Murderers, when it was sort of discussed if "she" could be released, the whole of the community she was living in before she was caught were discussing who could take up the contract on her head. It was the community of [an area], near Manchester, and I grew up around those parts. [..I have removed the exact name for obvious reasons] If either of them had been released, it would have been "Open season" on their heads. If it comes to those type of feelings, rather than let that kind of upset be divisive of a whole community, then the death sentence should be considered. I agree on the "life means life" thing (which it sadly doesn't over here), but I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the last part... What...? If a criminal "upsets the community enough", we should just go ahead and put them to sleep...? If that is what you're saying, that could be an extremely slippery slope! Is a slippery slope better than a long drop?. I must "put on the hat" of the resident of that part of East Manchester that lost all the kids to the moors murderers of hindley and brady. Read here. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors_murdersFive known cases of kids going missing. I didnt just know of the families, I knew the kids of those families... and the brothers and sisters, cousins, the whole lot, we trod the same streets and watched the same films in the same cinema, down to some of them being at the same school I attended. Ask me again if I believe the many attempts by both of them to get released were good for our community or those families?. Back to the Adult me. I therefore have deep sympathy with anyone affected by a serial killer getting top the possible end of a long spell behind bars. Is it better that you forgive?.. no, you cant do that, because you will NEVER forget. I have lived through the eventual demise of hindley and the near death of brady, and I know old wounds are still open. brady was still calling for his own release the last I heard of him, being fed through a tube, we do not know if he is dead or not, nor do we know if the death will be reported, as there is a deafening sound of silence on his current status. "Some say" its better that way, if it rots, let it drop. However, news of his demise will help close old wounds. So point me towards serial killers and ask, is it better that they are kept alive with the threat of release, or should they be euthanasia?.. ?.. Forget all the clever words, I am for a simpler long drop and short rope, hang the bar-stewards, and lets be done with it, its cheaper that way, why should they be left comfortable with TV heat and three-square-a-day whilst families struggle to stay together after such loss?.. For such cases, where do you draw the line?. I ask you first draw a bloody line where you shall not cross, those that do, the final punishment, and for serial and mass murderers, there should be a definite end. If Bin-Laden hadnt been Bin-Bagged, just "how much" pressure [possibly from other countries] would there be to have him released?.. Should we allow that?. Perhaps you see me as cold hearted?.. No.The reverse is true. Its the cause of the families and survivors, to have justice, and for that, the needs of the many far outweigh the wants of the few. I favour "Capitol punishment" as the final cure for some more heinous crimes. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 19, 2017 7:59:35 GMT
And who gets to decide when the community is "outraged enough"? The guy in Robe and Wig, plus the jury. That is why we have them isnt it? The social conciousness of the society is kept in the courthouse, under laws. Most of our laws are there to protect society, there is no other logical conclusion as to why we have them, and who says 31mph is [x]-more dangerous than 30 mph and needs a fine at that point. Someone has drawn the line. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 19, 2017 13:33:44 GMT
And who gets to decide when the community is "outraged enough"? The guy in Robe and Wig, plus the jury. That is why we have them isnt it? The social conciousness of the society is kept in the courthouse, under laws. Most of our laws are there to protect society, there is no other logical conclusion as to why we have them, and who says 31mph is [x]-more dangerous than 30 mph and needs a fine at that point. Someone has drawn the line. We can certainly agree on all that*, so why the sudden wish to introduce the extremely iffy criteria of "amount of outrage caused to the community"? Courts are supposed to be objective. Having to gauge when a community is "outraged enough" is highly subjective. What one community finds wrong but unfortunately par for the course might be seen as heinous and extreme in another, so you could end up in jail in one place and end up hung somewhere else for the same crime, simply because the court decides that here, it causes "enough outrage". *except for the wig - we don't do wigs on judges over here and I hope we never will |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2017 15:21:16 GMT
The guy in Robe and Wig, plus the jury. That is why we have them isnt it? The social conciousness of the society is kept in the courthouse, under laws. Most of our laws are there to protect society, there is no other logical conclusion as to why we have them, and who says 31mph is [x]-more dangerous than 30 mph and needs a fine at that point. Someone has drawn the line. We can certainly agree on all that*, so why the sudden wish to introduce the extremely iffy criteria of "amount of outrage caused to the community"? Courts are supposed to be objective. Having to gauge when a community is "outraged enough" is highly subjective. What one community finds wrong but unfortunately par for the course might be seen as heinous and extreme in another, so you could end up in jail in one place and end up hung somewhere else for the same crime, simply because the court decides that here, it causes "enough outrage". *except for the wig - we don't do wigs on judges over here and I hope we never will I'm sure some of our judges wear wigs, but not as a badge of office.  an example of lack of objectivity. some communities consider shooting drugs into your arm to be outrageous, and some consider arresting a person for shooting drugs into his arm outrageous. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 19, 2017 22:40:39 GMT
We can certainly agree on all that*, so why the sudden wish to introduce the extremely iffy criteria of "amount of outrage caused to the community"? Courts are supposed to be objective. Having to gauge when a community is "outraged enough" is highly subjective. What one community finds wrong but unfortunately par for the course might be seen as heinous and extreme in another, so you could end up in jail in one place and end up hung somewhere else for the same crime, simply because the court decides that here, it causes "enough outrage". *except for the wig - we don't do wigs on judges over here and I hope we never will I'm sure some of our judges wear wigs, but not as a badge of office. an example of lack of objectivity. some communities consider shooting drugs into your arm to be outrageous, and some consider arresting a person for shooting drugs into his arm outrageous. That's one example. There are also places where bar fights are regular occurrences that will only land the protagonists in jail for the night, as long as no one is seriously hurt and they were both equally to blame for the scuffle. In other places, a kid hitting another kid on the school playground will have parents demanding that the principal resigns and the county provides psychological help to the traumatized bystanders. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet those two types of communities would have radically different opinions of what would be considered "outrage enough". |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2017 22:51:51 GMT
I'm sure some of our judges wear wigs, but not as a badge of office. an example of lack of objectivity. some communities consider shooting drugs into your arm to be outrageous, and some consider arresting a person for shooting drugs into his arm outrageous. That's one example. There are also places where bar fights are regular occurrences that will only land the protagonists in jail for the night, as long as no one is seriously hurt and they were both equally to blame for the scuffle. In other places, a kid hitting another kid on the school playground will have parents demanding that the principal resigns and the county provides psychological help to the traumatized bystanders. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet those two types of communities would have radically different opinions of what would be considered "outrage enough". sometimes those two are the same people in the same town. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 19, 2017 22:57:39 GMT
That's one example. There are also places where bar fights are regular occurrences that will only land the protagonists in jail for the night, as long as no one is seriously hurt and they were both equally to blame for the scuffle. In other places, a kid hitting another kid on the school playground will have parents demanding that the principal resigns and the county provides psychological help to the traumatized bystanders. I'm not a gambling man, but I'd be willing to bet those two types of communities would have radically different opinions of what would be considered "outrage enough". sometimes those two are the same people in the same town. Right. As I always say, if standards are good, double standards must be twice as good. |
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Jan 19, 2017 23:29:58 GMT
sometimes those two are the same people in the same town. Right. As I always say, if standards are good, double standards must be twice as good. "these are my values and if you don't like them, I have others" |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 20, 2017 7:39:13 GMT
The guy in Robe and Wig, plus the jury. That is why we have them isnt it? The social conciousness of the society is kept in the courthouse, under laws. Most of our laws are there to protect society, there is no other logical conclusion as to why we have them, and who says 31mph is [x]-more dangerous than 30 mph and needs a fine at that point. Someone has drawn the line. We can certainly agree on all that*, so why the sudden wish to introduce the extremely iffy criteria of "amount of outrage caused to the community"? Courts are supposed to be objective. Having to gauge when a community is "outraged enough" is highly subjective. What one community finds wrong but unfortunately par for the course might be seen as heinous and extreme in another, so you could end up in jail in one place and end up hung somewhere else for the same crime, simply because the court decides that here, it causes "enough outrage". *except for the wig - we don't do wigs on judges over here and I hope we never will Consider different legal systems around the world. In some countries, some small islands, Grand Theft Auto is not even a crime on their books. They dont have roads or even cars on them, so why have the laws?. There may be theft of property, but its just property, Vehicles dont have their own subsection or even get named in the actual word of the law... Different communities have different laws already, its up to the Judge to decide what that community wants, and in cases where there is no law yet on that subject, "make" law as the community decides... As in, we may have been the first country in the world to abolish slavery here in UK... But we are also the last in history at this time to actually make it illegal. We only just did that because we only just found out that Modern Slavery still existed in this country, we believed we had abolished it *centuries* ago without the need for law?.. and we almost did. Its only other countries sending migrants here that created the modern slavery problem... Changes in law can be done in many ways, a Judge having to hear a trial is one way laws get changed, and referring them up to the houses of parliament is one way *new* laws are made in UK. |
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Jan 20, 2017 12:16:47 GMT
We can certainly agree on all that*, so why the sudden wish to introduce the extremely iffy criteria of "amount of outrage caused to the community"? Courts are supposed to be objective. Having to gauge when a community is "outraged enough" is highly subjective. What one community finds wrong but unfortunately par for the course might be seen as heinous and extreme in another, so you could end up in jail in one place and end up hung somewhere else for the same crime, simply because the court decides that here, it causes "enough outrage". *except for the wig - we don't do wigs on judges over here and I hope we never will Consider different legal systems around the world. In some countries, some small islands, Grand Theft Auto is not even a crime on their books. They dont have roads or even cars on them, so why have the laws?. There may be theft of property, but its just property, Vehicles dont have their own subsection or even get named in the actual word of the law... Different communities have different laws already, its up to the Judge to decide what that community wants, and in cases where there is no law yet on that subject, "make" law as the community decides... As in, we may have been the first country in the world to abolish slavery here in UK... But we are also the last in history at this time to actually make it illegal. We only just did that because we only just found out that Modern Slavery still existed in this country, we believed we had abolished it *centuries* ago without the need for law?.. and we almost did. Its only other countries sending migrants here that created the modern slavery problem... Changes in law can be done in many ways, a Judge having to hear a trial is one way laws get changed, and referring them up to the houses of parliament is one way *new* laws are made in UK. Sure, but that's on a national scale. There are many communities within one nation and one community may have a lower tolerance for outrage than others. You can't sentence someone to death in Carlisle for a crime that would only get them 5 years in prison in Colchester, simply because people in Carlisle are easier to outrage. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2017 8:43:28 GMT
Consider different legal systems around the world. In some countries, some small islands, Grand Theft Auto is not even a crime on their books. They dont have roads or even cars on them, so why have the laws?. There may be theft of property, but its just property, Vehicles dont have their own subsection or even get named in the actual word of the law... Different communities have different laws already, its up to the Judge to decide what that community wants, and in cases where there is no law yet on that subject, "make" law as the community decides... As in, we may have been the first country in the world to abolish slavery here in UK... But we are also the last in history at this time to actually make it illegal. We only just did that because we only just found out that Modern Slavery still existed in this country, we believed we had abolished it *centuries* ago without the need for law?.. and we almost did. Its only other countries sending migrants here that created the modern slavery problem... Changes in law can be done in many ways, a Judge having to hear a trial is one way laws get changed, and referring them up to the houses of parliament is one way *new* laws are made in UK. Sure, but that's on a national scale. There are many communities within one nation and one community may have a lower tolerance for outrage than others. You can't sentence someone to death in Carlisle for a crime that would only get them 5 years in prison in Colchester, simply because people in Carlisle are easier to outrage. So why doesnt all of America have death row prisons?. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 21, 2017 9:14:04 GMT
Sure, but that's on a national scale. There are many communities within one nation and one community may have a lower tolerance for outrage than others. You can't sentence someone to death in Carlisle for a crime that would only get them 5 years in prison in Colchester, simply because people in Carlisle are easier to outrage. So why doesnt all of America have death row prisons?. Because, although it's sometimes hard to realize, the individual states retain sovereignty in this area. Only 32 have the death penalty. 18 states and Washington, D.C. have no death penalty. The Federal government does have the death penalty for certain crimes that override the individual states (treason, for example). Heck, we even had a 10 year ban on executions, when the Supreme Court labelled them "cruel and unusual punishment". In 2016, there were 20 executions. To give you an idea of how rare they are, there were 38 people who died by lightning strikes in the same year. |
|
|
|
Post by silverdragon on Jan 21, 2017 9:26:33 GMT
So why doesnt all of America have death row prisons?. Because, although it's sometimes hard to realize, the individual states retain sovereignty in this area. Only 32 have the death penalty. 18 states and Washington, D.C. have no death penalty. The Federal government does have the death penalty for certain crimes that override the individual states (treason, for example). Heck, we even had a 10 year ban on executions, when the Supreme Court labelled them "cruel and unusual punishment". In 2016, there were 20 executions. To give you an idea of how rare they are, there were 38 people who died by lightning strikes in the same year. But Exactly ... Your law, which is all American law, relies upon "Local" as you call it sovereignty laws in that area. European law is almost exactly unlike the same difference... In UK, you can get a 3point endorsement for speeding, in some other countries, its an on-the-spot fine, in other countries, its a round of applause for managing to do more than 20mph on that bit of flattened out mud.... The same "Offence" is viewed a hell of a lot different dependant on what country or state you live in. In UK, Speeding fines and endorsements start at 1%+3, so say a 30 limit, you can be warned at 32, but at 34, your getting a fine, at 60 its about 66 mph before they will stop you, at 70, its more or less 80mph before they will clamp down... However, in North Wales, their chief of police being a tyrant, set it a 1mph over the limit, so 31, 41, 51, 61, 71, if you stray "just over" that mark, the cash-cow fine and points system starts. |
|
|
|
Post by Lokifan on Jan 21, 2017 9:50:43 GMT
We're not monolithic.
I'm surprised the Europeans are trying to be (if that's your point--sorry, my insomnia is making me a little dense tonight).
Don't ever go to Burlingame, CA. They have one set of right turn cameras that charge about $600 per infraction. Even in California, that's considered insane, but Burlingame is a small town (it doesn't even have a police department) and the tickets pay for their city budget.
|
|
