Lee Rigby Murder Trial

[knowabit]

Why is money being wasted on this trial and that poor mans family having to sit thru it all.... The 2 murderers have pleaded not guilty, but there is more than enough video and camera evidence showing them committing the murder and admitting to it! And who the hell is defending them in court!?

[daffy654]

As much as you may not like it they are entitled to a fair trial.

[sandyRoe]

If there's no trial, and conviction, there can be no sentence. That's the way things are done here.

[2sp_]

Our justice system dictates that they have the right to a trial, so that's what they are getting.

[knowabit]

But I should think not even the best defence lawyer in the world could get them off that charge! It's a clear cut case surely.... Why put it to court?

[sandyRoe]

It's the judge who hands down a sentence after someone is convicted. If they weren't dealt with by a court they'd be free.

[2sp_]

Of course their lawyer doesn't have a cat in hell's chance of getting them off, the objective will be to get the lowest sentence possible for his/her clients.

I am glad I live in a country where everyone is entitled to a fair trial.

(Even if I do hope that these two rot in hell...)

[joggerjayne]

The only way to have a credible system of justice is to maintain the principle that everyone is entitled to a trial, and entitled to be represented.

Sometimes, a case looks really obvious.

Sometimes, it looks obvious to some, but not to others.

Sometimes, some people will tell you it's obvious, and you can't understand what they are on about.

You can't sort cases into different levels of obviousness, because that becomes too subjective.

So, you have to defend the principle that everybody ... absolutely everybody ... is entitled to have their case decided at trial.

Even when the outcome looks bleedin' obvious.

[mikey4444]

You have been given the reasons knowabit, why this court case in proceeding. In exactly the same way as trials of other cut and dried cases have.Its irritating I know but we don't have the Star Chamber anymore in Britain.

Justice just doesn't need to be done, it needs to be seen to be done.

[VHG]

>>>Why put it to court?

If it has not gone to court who decides if they are guilty, and who passes the sentence.

It is not up to the public or the police or the government to decide who is guilty and what the sentence is, but a courtroom and a jury and a judge.

Be glad you live in country where that is the case, in some countries it is NOT the case.

[sandyRoe]

It must be nearly 50 years since that punishment was abolished.

[2sp_]

Thankfully, sandy.

[ChillDoubt]

Despite their horrific crime, these two vermin will never get 'justice'.

I'll be relying on the criminal fraternity in the Big House to mete out what they really deserve.

Fingers crossed.

[LazyGun]

Justice has to be seen to be done. That's why everyone is entitled to a defence.

[TWR]

Give me a rope, I will save the country some money.

[Postdog]

Free them and let the public give out justice...they can't complain as it is THEIR idea of justice. Totally sick of people like like this being cosseted for the sake of human rights when they fail to consider the human rights of others. Scrum.

[Peter Pedant]

because the guilt-finding process is a trial here
and in a trial you must hear both sides

By the way Not Guilty doesnt mean I dont think I did it
it means that the defendant is putting the need to prove on the Crown.

at present the Crown is presenting the first bit of its case (address to the Jury)

we dont know yet what the Defence will do - plead self defence, necessity or insanity or all three.