News0 min ago
Why was the Stephen Lawrence murder any different from others? Discuss.
74 Answers
Why has this case created so much attention and will it continue to do so?
There is no question that this murder was a brutal needless murder, committed by one of a number of savage racist thugs.
There has been a conviction and two of the perpetrators are at last behind bars, but the police have stated that they will not close their file on this case until the others are also behind bars.
But one must ask, was this particular murder any more vicious than hundreds of others, which haven’t been given the same attention that this one has, why?
Even the hundreds of child murders or even mass murders have not been classed important enough as this one has to force a change in a law that has been part of English law for centuries, I refer of course to the double jeopardy law.
Because this law no longer exists due to this case, it means now that the state has the right to repeatedly send to trial a person until they get the conviction they seek, it also encourages police and prosecutors to act recklessly, attempting spurious or rushed prosecutions, reassured that there may be a second chance further down the line. In addition, a jury which knows of the case before it is sent for retrial.
This case has created mass media and in turn public hysteria, a change in law,
the need by the police to enter a person's residence and plant video and audio devices to record a person's activities, a situation where it seems the murder of a black person is deemed more serious than the murder of a white person, or the murder of a child or the mass murder of persons.
These are all serious concerns that I know others have voiced (perhaps not on AB,) but on radio phone-ins and on the street.
Can we now have a serious discussion on this, without the need for the usual insults and cries of racism, I am not asking for agreement with these concerns, but I wish for others to explain why this particular murder was any different than hundreds of others?
There is no question that this murder was a brutal needless murder, committed by one of a number of savage racist thugs.
There has been a conviction and two of the perpetrators are at last behind bars, but the police have stated that they will not close their file on this case until the others are also behind bars.
But one must ask, was this particular murder any more vicious than hundreds of others, which haven’t been given the same attention that this one has, why?
Even the hundreds of child murders or even mass murders have not been classed important enough as this one has to force a change in a law that has been part of English law for centuries, I refer of course to the double jeopardy law.
Because this law no longer exists due to this case, it means now that the state has the right to repeatedly send to trial a person until they get the conviction they seek, it also encourages police and prosecutors to act recklessly, attempting spurious or rushed prosecutions, reassured that there may be a second chance further down the line. In addition, a jury which knows of the case before it is sent for retrial.
This case has created mass media and in turn public hysteria, a change in law,
the need by the police to enter a person's residence and plant video and audio devices to record a person's activities, a situation where it seems the murder of a black person is deemed more serious than the murder of a white person, or the murder of a child or the mass murder of persons.
These are all serious concerns that I know others have voiced (perhaps not on AB,) but on radio phone-ins and on the street.
Can we now have a serious discussion on this, without the need for the usual insults and cries of racism, I am not asking for agreement with these concerns, but I wish for others to explain why this particular murder was any different than hundreds of others?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. 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.
I speak to a number of police officers in connection with some of the work that I do. There is no doubt that many of them feel very much constrained by the unequal way that they are expected to approach various sections of the community they police. These practices are dictated by their senior officers and many of them have been developed as a direct result of the recommendations of the Macpherson report.
As far as “stop and search” is concerned, Macpherson proposed no changes to the stop and search procedure. However, since Macpherson much criticism is made of its disproportionate use against black people. This criticism is misplaced. In areas where a large majority of the street crime is committed by black people the police would be failing in their duty if they did not direct their efforts predominantly towards black people.
There is a widespread belief among the officers I meet that when they are investigating matters where “minorities” are concerned (and these are not necessarily restricted to racial minorities, but also to religious and cultural minorities) that they must “tread carefully” in case they upset their sensitivities and destroy the very delicate balance they are expected to maintain between those groups and themselves. The ACPO has openly stated that different approaches must be taken when policing different cultures. Of course, no such delicacies exist when policing white British people; their sensitivities seem to be of little consequence. Many of the report's recommendations have led to this situation.
All this is not the “evidence” you seek, I know. But it is testimony to the fact that the police face widespread difficulties when black and other minorities are involved. These difficulties should not exist. The public is entitled to expect the police to carry out their duties equally across the community as a whole without fear or favour.
Back to “double jeopardy”, of course there will always be advances in science which make successful prosecutions more likely. But I believe it is simply not just to retry acquitted suspects. The prosecution should have one crack at the task and upon acquittal the defendant should be entitled to walk away. I’m quite sure that the change in the law would not have been made but for the Lawrence case, and even then it would not have been made if the Lawrence family had not launched their ill-conceived private prosecution. And as I said earlier, law changes made in response to a single example of a problem are very often bad laws.
I think I’ll give this one a rest now as I think I’ve strayed too far from AOG’s original question and I also had more than my fair share of the air time !!!
As far as “stop and search” is concerned, Macpherson proposed no changes to the stop and search procedure. However, since Macpherson much criticism is made of its disproportionate use against black people. This criticism is misplaced. In areas where a large majority of the street crime is committed by black people the police would be failing in their duty if they did not direct their efforts predominantly towards black people.
There is a widespread belief among the officers I meet that when they are investigating matters where “minorities” are concerned (and these are not necessarily restricted to racial minorities, but also to religious and cultural minorities) that they must “tread carefully” in case they upset their sensitivities and destroy the very delicate balance they are expected to maintain between those groups and themselves. The ACPO has openly stated that different approaches must be taken when policing different cultures. Of course, no such delicacies exist when policing white British people; their sensitivities seem to be of little consequence. Many of the report's recommendations have led to this situation.
All this is not the “evidence” you seek, I know. But it is testimony to the fact that the police face widespread difficulties when black and other minorities are involved. These difficulties should not exist. The public is entitled to expect the police to carry out their duties equally across the community as a whole without fear or favour.
Back to “double jeopardy”, of course there will always be advances in science which make successful prosecutions more likely. But I believe it is simply not just to retry acquitted suspects. The prosecution should have one crack at the task and upon acquittal the defendant should be entitled to walk away. I’m quite sure that the change in the law would not have been made but for the Lawrence case, and even then it would not have been made if the Lawrence family had not launched their ill-conceived private prosecution. And as I said earlier, law changes made in response to a single example of a problem are very often bad laws.
I think I’ll give this one a rest now as I think I’ve strayed too far from AOG’s original question and I also had more than my fair share of the air time !!!
andy-hughes
/// It is unlikely that the sentences will be increased ///
http://www.huffington...review_n_1185968.html
/// It is unlikely that the sentences will be increased ///
http://www.huffington...review_n_1185968.html
New Judge
Another brilliant post, I don't think that you have strayed too far from my original question, you have most elegantly explained the whole problems that not only the police face but also many others who dare not speak out in case they are called racists.
We are denied 'a level playing field'
Another brilliant post, I don't think that you have strayed too far from my original question, you have most elegantly explained the whole problems that not only the police face but also many others who dare not speak out in case they are called racists.
We are denied 'a level playing field'
Its an interesting issue, this double jeopardy thing. I think it right, for instance, that the killers be sentenced in line with the sentencing guidelines of the day, and also taking into account their ages - 2 decades have passed, and a lot has changed, so that seems fair to me.
Allowing the double jeopardy rule to stand however, when we have had a paradigm shift in science allowing for fast, reliable dna matching from minuscule or even previously undetectable biological leavings would simply be unfair to the victims, and the family and friends of the victims.
It seems to me to fall into the same category as using the national DNA database to tag, for example, a previously uncaught rapist from the biological markers of a more recent, lesser, even petty crime that have been caught and charged for.
I have some issues with cultural sensibilities, since I am not a fan of those conditioned by religion, so its probably a good job I am not a front line police officer. Pragmatically speaking though, if showing an awareness of and a respect for another cultures sensibilities gains greater co-operation with and a reduced hostility to the police, it makes sense to observe them.Are the police only happy when they can act with a minimum of sensitivity? Is it an offence to their own culture to show a bit of respect to others?
I am fortunate enough to be a white middle aged, middle class male, so have not been subject to the indignity of the stop and search. Were I a young black male, no doubt I would be incensed at the seemingly disproportionate use of police powers to effect my life. The huge difference in S and S between differing racial groups seems disproportionate to me, but I havent really looked at the statistics and the evidence.
Allowing the double jeopardy rule to stand however, when we have had a paradigm shift in science allowing for fast, reliable dna matching from minuscule or even previously undetectable biological leavings would simply be unfair to the victims, and the family and friends of the victims.
It seems to me to fall into the same category as using the national DNA database to tag, for example, a previously uncaught rapist from the biological markers of a more recent, lesser, even petty crime that have been caught and charged for.
I have some issues with cultural sensibilities, since I am not a fan of those conditioned by religion, so its probably a good job I am not a front line police officer. Pragmatically speaking though, if showing an awareness of and a respect for another cultures sensibilities gains greater co-operation with and a reduced hostility to the police, it makes sense to observe them.Are the police only happy when they can act with a minimum of sensitivity? Is it an offence to their own culture to show a bit of respect to others?
I am fortunate enough to be a white middle aged, middle class male, so have not been subject to the indignity of the stop and search. Were I a young black male, no doubt I would be incensed at the seemingly disproportionate use of police powers to effect my life. The huge difference in S and S between differing racial groups seems disproportionate to me, but I havent really looked at the statistics and the evidence.
I know I said I’d shut up, Corby, but I really cannot!
There have been many instances of people having been acquitted and later admitting their guilt. The principle on which justice used to operate in the UK was that the prosecution had one chance to prove their case based on the evidence and the law prevailing at the time of the trial. Similarly, the defendant had only to mount a single defence case in response to the evidence proffered.
An acquittal for a serious offence under the new circumstances is not an acquittal at all. It is simply the conclusion of the prosecution’s first crack at the nut. They know that they can bide their time for a while, waiting for the advances in science (or indeed the revelation of “new and compelling evidence”) that may enable them to have another go.
I hold no brief for criminals who have committed serious offences. They deserve to be sentenced in accordance with the law. But I do hold a brief for justice and I believe the abolition of “double jeopardy” (albeit in the very limited circumstances currently allowed) sees justice at the top of a very slippery slope. Furthermore, the circumstances in which the abolition was initiated are the very “knee jerk” circumstances which, as often as not, make for very bad law.
There have been many instances of people having been acquitted and later admitting their guilt. The principle on which justice used to operate in the UK was that the prosecution had one chance to prove their case based on the evidence and the law prevailing at the time of the trial. Similarly, the defendant had only to mount a single defence case in response to the evidence proffered.
An acquittal for a serious offence under the new circumstances is not an acquittal at all. It is simply the conclusion of the prosecution’s first crack at the nut. They know that they can bide their time for a while, waiting for the advances in science (or indeed the revelation of “new and compelling evidence”) that may enable them to have another go.
I hold no brief for criminals who have committed serious offences. They deserve to be sentenced in accordance with the law. But I do hold a brief for justice and I believe the abolition of “double jeopardy” (albeit in the very limited circumstances currently allowed) sees justice at the top of a very slippery slope. Furthermore, the circumstances in which the abolition was initiated are the very “knee jerk” circumstances which, as often as not, make for very bad law.
Justice must be fair and it is up to the prosection to prove guilt and you say the accused previously needed only to mount a single defence. However, if found guilty, they may appeal as many times as a judge believes the new evidence is such that a new hearing is justified. If a person is found guilty under the new double jeopardy law, the same appeal rights apply.
It's obvious that if new and compelling evidence comes to light indicating that a previously convicted person has been incorrectly convicted of a crime they didn't commit, that the case should be re-examined.
It's equally as obvious, to me at least, that if new and compelling evidence comes to light indicating a previously exonerated person has been incorrectly exonerated that the case should also be re-examined.
The original double jeopardy thing was like treating justice as a game - 'Sorry you only get one chance to prosecute - if the truth emerges afterwards, that's tough - them's the rules'. Nonsense.
It's equally as obvious, to me at least, that if new and compelling evidence comes to light indicating a previously exonerated person has been incorrectly exonerated that the case should also be re-examined.
The original double jeopardy thing was like treating justice as a game - 'Sorry you only get one chance to prosecute - if the truth emerges afterwards, that's tough - them's the rules'. Nonsense.
ludwig >>
It's obvious that if new and compelling evidence comes to light <<
one hair and one spot of blood smaller than the size of a pinhead , i would not class as compelling when their clothes have been in and out of those bags many times over the years
the items handled by lawyers who had no gloves on ?
same as the george person for the dando murder these will walk in a few years with a load of tax payers cash in their pocket
It's obvious that if new and compelling evidence comes to light <<
one hair and one spot of blood smaller than the size of a pinhead , i would not class as compelling when their clothes have been in and out of those bags many times over the years
the items handled by lawyers who had no gloves on ?
same as the george person for the dando murder these will walk in a few years with a load of tax payers cash in their pocket
New Judge - now THAT is an example of a well thought out and presented argument. Thank you for avoiding the usual racist cliches so beloved of other AB members.
I can neither agree or disagree with the thrust of your argument, because a) the police officers I know work in predominantly white areas.
My view is this - there was definitely a culture of racism in the police, which only reflected the society at the time. Black citizens were simply treated differently - I used to drive a BMW, bought with the gains of a pretty decent salary.
On one weekend, I was stopped eight times.
Yep - eight times.
It was a wonder I could get any burgling done with all that unnecessary harassment.
I can neither agree or disagree with the thrust of your argument, because a) the police officers I know work in predominantly white areas.
My view is this - there was definitely a culture of racism in the police, which only reflected the society at the time. Black citizens were simply treated differently - I used to drive a BMW, bought with the gains of a pretty decent salary.
On one weekend, I was stopped eight times.
Yep - eight times.
It was a wonder I could get any burgling done with all that unnecessary harassment.
Excellent post's New Judge and I agree with everything that the police officers have told you. One of many other alarming issues is that reported racist incidents are all classed as a high priority response (20 min) and even the most ridiculous report will take priority over much more serious crime.
Thanks SP. It's nice to be able to have a debate, share some views (even if we differ) and generally behave in a civilised fashion on AB. That's what I always try to do.
I'm pleased , exdec, that my findings somewhat concur with your views (I assume from your moniker that you are either ex or current "Job"). It's interesting what you say about the prioritisation of racist incidents. This, I believe, is one of the direct results of Macpherson and one with which I am in total disagreement. (Why does someone having seven bells knocked out of them without being racially abused rank lower in the pecking order than someone who is being, perhaps slightly less badly hammered, but is being called racist names?). Then, of course, there is the classification of a racist incident which produced the most preposterous of all the recommendations by Macpherson (that it is a racist incident if it is perceived to be racist by any person – whether present at or involved in the incident or not). So, in essence, the response by the police to an incident can be determined by an uninvolved Third Party ). These are all matters associated with the Macpherson report which have been eagerly embraced by senior police officers and have led to the difficulties I believe exist.
And that really is all from me !!!!
I'm pleased , exdec, that my findings somewhat concur with your views (I assume from your moniker that you are either ex or current "Job"). It's interesting what you say about the prioritisation of racist incidents. This, I believe, is one of the direct results of Macpherson and one with which I am in total disagreement. (Why does someone having seven bells knocked out of them without being racially abused rank lower in the pecking order than someone who is being, perhaps slightly less badly hammered, but is being called racist names?). Then, of course, there is the classification of a racist incident which produced the most preposterous of all the recommendations by Macpherson (that it is a racist incident if it is perceived to be racist by any person – whether present at or involved in the incident or not). So, in essence, the response by the police to an incident can be determined by an uninvolved Third Party ). These are all matters associated with the Macpherson report which have been eagerly embraced by senior police officers and have led to the difficulties I believe exist.
And that really is all from me !!!!
Latest Posts
ChatterBank4 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Home & Garden5 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.