BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 The problem with this is you give the all powerful state with all its resources more and more chance to pin a crime on someone. What chance does an accused have in these circumstances, can they demand retrial after retrial? No they can't, they have to refer to a state run machine. Sssh you'll wake them all up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 A summary for you, I know that you are hard of thinking. Take it you're OK with David Norris being tried for this then - he wasn't tried first time round. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 The problem with this is you give the all powerful state with all its resources more and more chance to pin a crime on someone. What chance does an accused have in these circumstances, can they demand retrial after retrial? No they can't, they have to refer to a state run machine. The chance to have all the evidence brought before the court and for the truth of the matter to be established. Of course they can't demand retrial after retrial, that'd be ludicrous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Take it you're OK with David Norris being tried for this then - he wasn't tried first time round. Providing that a prima facie case exists yes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 The problem with this is you give the all powerful state with all its resources more and more chance to pin a crime on someone. What chance does an accused have in these circumstances, can they demand retrial after retrial? No they can't, they have to refer to a state run machine. David Norris is NOT being retried. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 A summary for you, I know that you are hard of thinking. and i still cant get around the thought process about your way of thinking. if they think theyre still guilty for whatever reason why shouldnt there be a second trial? what about innocent people locked up and found to be innocent? should they stay in prison? its like your living in an upside down world for some reason and as longcol has pointed out, what about the other party who WASNT involved in the original trial, any view on him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 yup and im still bamboozled by britpats thought process on the subject ive even posted as fully as i can explaining the new developments in the case, now dont tell me..........your against this new trial too? Then it would help if you read through the thread again and you can clearly see what his opinion is. My opinion is it's a high profile crime, I wish the Police would treat all crimes the same but they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 The problem with this is you give the all powerful state with all its resources more and more chance to pin a crime on someone. What chance does an accused have in these circumstances, can they demand retrial after retrial? No they can't, they have to refer to a state run machine. The 'state' doesn't decide to bring a fresh trial, it's heard at a review hearing where both sides are represented by QC's and the merits of the application heard and argued. The outcome is decided by a panel of judges and clear reasons given for it. Any hint of the state persecuting the defendants would be robustly challenged under Human Rights legislation...something the BNP want to dismantle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I wish the Police would treat all crimes the same but they don't. Well they certainly didnt in the Lawrence case, wouldn't you agree Streamline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Providing that a prima facie case exists yes. And what of the retrial - if there's new evidence that the CPS believe would stand in court ( given that the law now allows it ) surely there's a moral obligation to persue that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.