melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 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. its funny how suddenly its all the usual right wingers who are vehmently against a retrial, makes you think dunnit normally you all want every piece of scum whether proved to be innocent or guilty locked up and the key thrown away.......or worse. UNTIL its this (as you say high profile case) then strangely its all about turn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 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. I agree, so why is it OK for the state to do it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 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 Does the defendant/s get the same priviledge of course they don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 I agree, so why is it OK for the state to do it? how often has it happened since the law was changed? how often do you think they will use the power? and why do you think they will use the power? come on im as anti big brother as anybody but.......... the guy wasnt aquitted cos he was innocent, he was aquitted cos they ballsed up the inquiry. they obviously have plenty of evidence to show hes guilty, they also have alledged NEW evidence thats not just retrying somebody for the sake of it or plucking somebody off the street willy nilly. its somebody who they have a belief IS guilty, kinell theyve had 18 years to get it right lol its not exactly a kneejerk reaction a decent well run and thought out trial will prove once and for all if hes guilty or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Does the defendant/s get the same priviledge of course they don't. Sorry what privileges are you referring to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Longcol Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Does the defendant/s get the same priviledge of course they don't. David Norris is being tried for the first time - any objections? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyfriday Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 its funny how suddenly its all the usual right wingers who are vehmently against a retrial, makes you think dunnit I'm amazed, these are the same group of people who would be breathing fire at 'do gooders' and pursuing them with pitchforks if they ever said the same thing. Presumably the likes of BritPat and Streamline would like to see these 2 individuals still walking the streets and laughing at the criminal justice system: On 11 September 2006, William Dunlop became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being acquitted. Twice he was tried for the murder of Julie Hogg in Billingham in 1989, but two juries failed to reach a verdict and he was formally acquitted in 1991. Some years later, he confessed to the crime, and was convicted of perjury. The case was re-investigated in early 2005, when the new law came into effect, and his case was referred to the Court of Appeal in November 2005 for permission for a new trial, which was granted.[21][22][23] Dunlop pleaded guilty to murdering Julie Hogg and raping her dead body repeatedly, and was sentenced to life imprisonment, with a recommendation he serve no less than 17 years. On 13 December 2010, Mark Weston became the first person to be convicted of murder after previously being found not guilty of the same offence, that of the murder of Vikki Thompson at Ascott-under-Wychwood on 12 August 1995. Weston's first trial was in 1996, when the jury found him not guilty. Following the discovery of compelling new evidence in 2009 – Thompson's blood on Weston's boots – Weston was arrested in 2009 and tried for a second time in December 2010, when he was found guilty of Thompson's murder, and sentenced to life imprisonment to serve a minimum of 13 years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_jeopardy#England_and_Wales Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BritPat Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 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? Ok one more time just for you. Power rests with the State, the State has discretion over prosecuting and the timing of prosecutions. The State has no business indicting an individual in the absence of a prima facie case, the State has no business taking an individual to trial before the Crown Court unless not only a prima facie case has been established but there also exists a case strong enough to stand a better than even chance of conviction before a jury. When the prosecuting authorities erroneously convict an individual (that didn't ask to be tried in the first place) JUSTICE demands that the conviction is quashed. When the prosecuting authorities with Power and Time at their disposal try an individual and fail that should be an end to the matter. Do you understand that prosecutorial discretion lies with the State, the individual is by definition disadvantaged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Well they certainly didnt in the Lawrence case, wouldn't you agree Streamline? Never followed the case personally. I was more interested in Colin Stagg and the police conduct in that case, plus the Kriss Donald murder and the lack of media coverage and more recently following the blog of Ben, a guy who killed his one time friend when he was 14 and is still banged up some 30 + years later. http://prisonerben.blogspot.com/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Streamline Posted May 18, 2011 Share Posted May 18, 2011 Sorry what privileges are you referring to? The priviledges the state has. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.