News1 min ago
Would they get a fair trial
...or have too many people already made up their minds about these young men?
http://www.dailymail....r-charges-months.html
http://www.dailymail....r-charges-months.html
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by sp1814. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
you might find 12 people who don't read the Daily Mail (though not in AB's News section, obviously). In fact I don't, and as a result I've no idea of their names and can't really remember the circumstances of the killing. So I expect I'd be unprejudiced enough to be a juror, and there must be others too.
Fair question, though: these guys have received more than their share of publicity, including being called murderers by the Mail.
Fair question, though: these guys have received more than their share of publicity, including being called murderers by the Mail.
The fact that they may be tried again at all is unfair.
The “double jeopardy” rule was devised to prevent the prosecuting authorities from having numerous bites at the cherry should they be unsuccessful first time round and it served its purpose well for hundreds of years.
The Lawrence family jeopardised any chance of a prosecution succeeding when they launched their ill-advised private prosecution when there was clearly insufficient evidence. I believe the abolition of the double jeopardy rule was devised primarily with this case in mind and laws which are designed to address single isolated issues are usually bad laws.
If any of those accused do stand trial the trial judge will be hard pushed to successfully instil in the jury the idea that they must put everything they know about the case out of their minds. This is particularly so bearing in mind the vociferous campaign carried out by the media (and in particular the Daily Mail). It is most unlikely that a fair trial will now result.
In fact, jake has hit upon a good idea. I’m no fan of juryless trials, but there are circumstances where they might be necessary for the needs of justice to prevail. This could be one of them, but it is extremely unlikely that the law will be amended at all, and certainly not in time for this matter, should it come to court.
The “double jeopardy” rule was devised to prevent the prosecuting authorities from having numerous bites at the cherry should they be unsuccessful first time round and it served its purpose well for hundreds of years.
The Lawrence family jeopardised any chance of a prosecution succeeding when they launched their ill-advised private prosecution when there was clearly insufficient evidence. I believe the abolition of the double jeopardy rule was devised primarily with this case in mind and laws which are designed to address single isolated issues are usually bad laws.
If any of those accused do stand trial the trial judge will be hard pushed to successfully instil in the jury the idea that they must put everything they know about the case out of their minds. This is particularly so bearing in mind the vociferous campaign carried out by the media (and in particular the Daily Mail). It is most unlikely that a fair trial will now result.
In fact, jake has hit upon a good idea. I’m no fan of juryless trials, but there are circumstances where they might be necessary for the needs of justice to prevail. This could be one of them, but it is extremely unlikely that the law will be amended at all, and certainly not in time for this matter, should it come to court.
New Judge
You wrote: " believe the abolition of the double jeopardy rule was devised primarily with this case in mind".
Not true.
From the link I posted: "Ann Ming, whose daughter Julie Hogg was strangled in 1989, battled for years to change the law so that the man who confessed to the killing after being acquitted by a court could be brought to justice."
Nothing at all to do with Stephen Lawrence...just a happy by-product of the law change.
Read more: http://www.dailymail....hs.html#ixzz0u7oBuoNe
You wrote: " believe the abolition of the double jeopardy rule was devised primarily with this case in mind".
Not true.
From the link I posted: "Ann Ming, whose daughter Julie Hogg was strangled in 1989, battled for years to change the law so that the man who confessed to the killing after being acquitted by a court could be brought to justice."
Nothing at all to do with Stephen Lawrence...just a happy by-product of the law change.
Read more: http://www.dailymail....hs.html#ixzz0u7oBuoNe
New Judge, I'm unclear what the new evidence here involves. But I think it's fair to say tha the development of DNA forensics means that the possibility of new evidence being produced is now much greater than has been the case in centuries past. If for instance is is now possible to identify a suspect's DNA with much greater certainty than 20-odd years ago, I would have thought it worth reopening a case, no matter what would have happened in 1810. (But that may be a big "if".)
)))Under new 'double jeopardy' laws introduced in 2005, suspects acquitted of murder can now be retried if there is 'new and compelling evidence. The Crown Prosecution Service said: 'We have Not made a final decision in this case((( It seems to hinge on whether the CPS feel their new and compelling evidence is strong enough to bring the case to trial again - If the evidence is strong enough, then a fair trial should be possible - jury or non jury.
We will never know for sure what prompted the abolition of double jeopardy, sp. However, as you rightly say, Mrs Ming battled for years for a change but, tellingly in my view, she was not successful until long after the death of Stephen Lawrence.
Of course defendants always face the prospect of being judged by somebody who knows about their past rather than solely on the facts presented to support the current prosecution. In normal circumstances this is not a very likely prospect. However the allegations against the five in this case have remained high profile for eighteen years and there cannot be many people in the country who have not heard about the case, the victim and the suspects in some way.
But the most crucial difference here is that three of the five suspects have already been tried and acquitted. Most AB-ers will know that I have no time for robbers or murderers (or even speeding motorists!) and following proper conviction they deserve about twice what they usually get. However, I am also a strong believer in due process being applied and I am fundamentally opposed to the abolition of double jeopardy. People, however odious they may be, should not spend their lives wondering whether a second prosecution is going to launched against them for a serious matter of which they have been acquitted (unless the due process was faulty due to, say, jury nobbling or a witness committing perjury).
It may well lead to cases such as this where people who are quite likely to be guilty go free. But there are many such shortcomings to our criminal justice system and they are part of the price we all pay for a system which protects us from unfair conviction.
Of course defendants always face the prospect of being judged by somebody who knows about their past rather than solely on the facts presented to support the current prosecution. In normal circumstances this is not a very likely prospect. However the allegations against the five in this case have remained high profile for eighteen years and there cannot be many people in the country who have not heard about the case, the victim and the suspects in some way.
But the most crucial difference here is that three of the five suspects have already been tried and acquitted. Most AB-ers will know that I have no time for robbers or murderers (or even speeding motorists!) and following proper conviction they deserve about twice what they usually get. However, I am also a strong believer in due process being applied and I am fundamentally opposed to the abolition of double jeopardy. People, however odious they may be, should not spend their lives wondering whether a second prosecution is going to launched against them for a serious matter of which they have been acquitted (unless the due process was faulty due to, say, jury nobbling or a witness committing perjury).
It may well lead to cases such as this where people who are quite likely to be guilty go free. But there are many such shortcomings to our criminal justice system and they are part of the price we all pay for a system which protects us from unfair conviction.
SP, true it will be difficult but I would suspect we could find 12 somewhere.
Teh important thing of course is to ensure the defence cannot use a technicality to get them off, ie the trial is fair in both ways.
If these people did do it then they are scum and should be locked up for good. New eveidence has come up so of course they should be retried. Murder is the ultimate crime and should be treated as such.
Teh important thing of course is to ensure the defence cannot use a technicality to get them off, ie the trial is fair in both ways.
If these people did do it then they are scum and should be locked up for good. New eveidence has come up so of course they should be retried. Murder is the ultimate crime and should be treated as such.
In a demoracy we have a system where one is innocent untill proven guilty .
However I think that these men have brought some of the suspicions out there on themselves .
I seem to recall them giving the impression that they had something to do , with the killing and boasting that they couldn't be touched .
However I think that these men have brought some of the suspicions out there on themselves .
I seem to recall them giving the impression that they had something to do , with the killing and boasting that they couldn't be touched .
1 to 17 of 17
