Alleged thugs get bail?

[Hippy]

Last weekend a man was kicked and beaten to death on Clapham Common, London by two or three thugs. Witnesses saw this and police arrested three men later. Now they may not be guilty of anything, but they were bailed to appear in court later. However, if these people are the guilty ones is it not rather silly to let them roam free to bash others? Would it not have been safer to remand them in custody, given that the police obviously think they have a strong case?

[Oneeyedvic]

I don't know the full story here, but this is my opinion on what you post:

Firstly, the priciple behind it is that they are innocent until prvoen guilty. Bail should be given if (1) they pose no threat to the general public (and am guesing that if they have no criminal record in the past and know they will be watched, they won't go out bashing people (if guilty)) and (2) if the magistrate / judge beleives that they will turn up for the hearing.

Unless an arrested person is a threat or has a history of not turning up for court appearances or police caught them about to flee the country, why should they be locked up for potentially months when they could easily be innocent.

It would be interesting to know if the CPS asked for them to be remanded in custordy - if they didn't then their case may not be as strong as you think.

[Chessman]

The authorities are probably worried they might get sued for hurt feelings.

[don1]

The law in this country is the pits of the planet, two days ago three girls one aged 18,( the other two must have been younger because their ages were not given) were convicted of killing a fifteen year old girl and were sentenced to two years detention each.

If they get the standard parole they will serve 12 months.

How would you feel about that sentence if the dead 15 year old was your daughter?

[january_bug]

Yes of course don - one example proves the whole case!

Sorry, I just get SOOO frustrated by these "our country is so crap" generalisations!  People are totally welcome to their opinions, but the platituds just irritate me a LOT. 

Vic is right, I feel.  The police/CPS will have had good reason for granting bail.  The key point Hippy, you made yourself - IF they are guilty.  Right now, they are to be presumed innocent.  With the criteria mentioned by Vic, a decision has been made that they will return to court if called.  Mistakes are sometimes made, and yes, some people commit offence whilst on bail, but I would presume (though I don't know for sure) that most do not. 

[don1]

Jan bug, Are you saying that the sentence for these three is the right one?

If you are you must be a lawyer, nobody else but a lawyer could be dumb enough to think that this is right for taking the life of a child.

[Oneeyedvic]

don - do you actually know the facts of the case or are you reporting a sensational headline?

Convicted of killing is not an offense. Murder is, as is manslaughter. So which is it? Obviously it is manslaughter and not murder - and I say obviously as I beleive murder carries a minimum term of 12 years if under 21.

How can you ask if a term is fair when you don't present any facts?

J_bug - can't beleive you used the term "Vic is right, I feel" - makes me feel all warm and gooey ;-)

[don1]

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/19102005/344/three-sentenced-ai mee-killing.html

[Oneeyedvic]

Firslty, it is a sad story and my sympathy goes to the girl's family.

As suspected, they didn't murder the victim  - they had a fight. Do you think every one who has a fight should have a life imprisonment? It is an unfotunate event, but the fact is that there was no murderous intent. It was an accident.

Or are you the type who think that "where there is a blame there is a claim".

Maybe her doctor should be sued for not diagnosing the condition as well?

[Andy008]

The police don't necessarily think they have a strong case. The police only need "reasonable suspicion" to arrest somebody in connection with an offence. They will have been bailed "pending further investigation".

In English law guilt is a technical relationship between charge and evidence. It has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not somebody is responsible for the commission of a crime.

Therefore, they can only be judged to be guilty of the murder if and when evidence solidly connecting them to the crime is present.

[don1]

Oneeyedvic, If as you say it was an accident why did they get two years?

[january_bug]

don - do you read ANYTHING properly?  I ask seriously- because you seem to just pic out the bits you like and ignore the rest.  I said sarcasticly "yes, one example proves the whole case!"

My point, is that one miscarriage of justice (I'm not saying that that case is/was) does not mean that an entire legal system is the "pits of the planet".  We have "innocent until proven guilty", "trial by jury" and a system of sentencing guidelines that mean no person can be made an example of.  We also have an independent judiciary.  I personally feel that this justifies our position as one of the most respected legal systems in the world. 

It might ocassionally allow mistakes to happen, but on the whole it is an excellent system.

I'm not a lawyer.  I have an LL.M however.  Again - you make a platititude that all lawyers are dumb (what an Amercanism!).  I presume you must be jealous of the people in a high IQ, high salary, high profile profession. 

vic - I do agree with you!!!  It is possible!  We actually agree on about as much as we disagree on I think, or perhaps the ratio is even more positive than that!!

[january_bug]

Apologies for the typo on "platitude" - was typing too quickly!

[don1]

Jan bug, If you would like me to quote you several hundred instances of where what is "laughingly called British justice" has got it wrong believe me I can.

However, I am reluctant to get into these conversations on the net because I cant adequately describe the horrors of miscarriage of justice in this country when the site only allows posts of a couple of hundred words where it would take thousands.

I will ask you again, if your 15 year old daughter were dead would you be happy at this courts decision?

If your answer is yes you are either being argumentative for the sake of it or you are plain dumb. Aren't you?

[january_bug]

I don't have a 15 year old daughter.  If I did and she was killed, then I would think about the circumstances of what happened.  I don't see how ruining the lives of others would bring back my daughter, so having them killed or locked away for life at the taxpayer's expense does not seem beneficial to me when it might be possible that they could make a valuable contribution to society.  I therefore would like to see them imprisoned for as long as it took to teach them that what they did was wrong, and to ensure that they wouldn't engage in such violent behaviour again.  However, if they had learnt this lesson, then I would want them to be free to live productive and useful lives. 

I'm sure you'll now say I'm dumb.  I can most strongly assure you that I am not stupid in any way shape or form.   

I now invite you to give the few hundred examples of miscarriages of justice, as you said you could, and, for every one you give, I will give you 100 where justice WAS done here, and a further 100 where a greater miscarriage of justice occured abroad.   Please start a new thread though, otherwise it won't be fair on Hippy.  Thanks.   

[Oneeyedvic]

They got two years as it was a aclear case of they were fighting - and it was an unprovoked attack. The charge got upgraded to manslaughter as a person died - but by definition manslaughter menas there is no intent to kill.

Fact is these girls did not mean to kill anyone

The victim would not have died in normal circumstances - she had an undiagnosed condition

If your 15 year old daughter was walking down the street, a car misfired and she had a heart attack, shoudl the car owner be prosecuted? No of course not.

These girls were prosecuted for what they did - an unprovoked drunken attack. And they received a slightly harsher sentance than is normal for that sort of offense.

Of course if it were your own family you would want a harsher jail sentance - but that is becasue you are making an emotional response.

[january_bug]

vic - that ratio is tipping all the time!  And great minds obviously do think alike as we seem to keep cross posting too!  Well said good sir (don't tell WM I called you sir, he'll get jealous!) - for once, I strongly agree with you.  It's nice that there ARE people who can grasp the legal system, without blindly beliving everything the tabloids tell them to.  Hurrah - there is hope! :-D

[Oneeyedvic]

thank you J_bug - as you say - nice that we can agree

[bernardo]

I was going to write a thoughtful and reasoned answer, but having read through the answers in the thread so far, it is obvious that the people to whom I would be addressing a logical argument are not capable of absorbing any logic, reason or sense.  So I won't bother.

[january_bug]

Do you mean me?! :-(  If so, I am really sorry Bernardo.  Please say it and I'll promise to behave myself and be mature! :-)

[don1]

January bug, OK lets start here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3078216.stm

you have several thousand to come dont make plans to go out for the next few years.