Home  Forums |
|
|
|
|
Topic History of: Every year in the UK over 2000 criminal convictions
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)
|
Randall |
Thanks, dear host. Glad to be here, posting.
Matthew Scott seems to have some of the same concerns as contributors here. An ally perhaps?
A further point about 2000 convictions being overturned is that the result is reversed AFTER the penalty has been - wrongly - imposed. In several European countries, a conviction in a criminal court has to go through a process of confirmation in a higher court, or a series of higher courts. Ultimately, the process can go as far as an application to the European Commission. During the confirmation procedures, defence objections about the rectitude of the trial and verdict are heard and faults can be corrected BEFORE punishment actually happens. This seems much better than throwing someone in gaol immediately, and then saying, for example, whoops sorry Mr Nealon what a booboo we made there, but never mind, it's all sorted out now. Here's £46 and fuck off. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
Very well put Randall and always happy that you post here BEFORE on Matthew's excellent Barrister Blog!
On what?  |
|
JK2006 |
Very well put Randall and always happy that you post here BEFORE on Matthew's excellent Barrister Blog! |
|
Randall |
Some do get off on the slightest and most spurious technicalities imaginable.
Others, like JK and Rolf Harris and thousands of other not famous men, have a trial that resembles some kind of pantomine Kafka Punch and Judy show. When they point out the glaring flaws, they receive either a barefaced denial that anything was amiss, or they get Jesuitical nonsense telling them that although the trial violated centuries old principles of fairness, it could not in any real sense in the particular circumstances be called unfair. |
|
honey!oh sugar sugar. |
JK2006 wrote:
are overturned. Innocent men and women are released - some after years in prison. This was information on The One Show in a light hearted feature. Should it not be Front Page on the Mail?
There should be a national outrage, and there might be, except people have it drummed into them that the verdict is always right and people only get off on technicalities.  |
|
|
|
