Does Jon Venables deserve execution?

[rigsby]

That depends on your faith, whether to forgive or seek retribution

UTS

I don't have one, apart from we won't be relegated this year.

Would 15 years still not class as retribution ?

 

[Blueronron]

I don't have one, apart from we won't be relegated this year.

Would 15 years still not class as retribution ?

Again depends how you class retribution, some would like to see him suffer for days ,maybe role playing a few Saw franchise scenerio, me my self would be like Benfleet A1, it would not see court, and happy to spend my life with Big Shirley as his bitch if caught
Think its great that faith can turn a negative into a positive for some people, but donot go along with the picture that people say, I didn't know it was going to happen, if you move in the circle of scum then you know the score

UTS

 

[Firestorm]

Not necessarily the case. Depends on who is amongst the jury, which why in a modern society the system is completely flawed.

Genuine question as I have not seen it as a problem, and thought is was well thought of all around the world

How is the Jury system flawed and what can be done to "un flaw" it .

 

[Firestorm]

So to change the question slightly what if like some US states the victims family had a say in the sentence. If someone had murdered your child and the choice was life sentence with possible parole after 15 years or the death sentence what would you choose ?

Then the sentence becomes less about Punishment or rehabilitation and more about revenge or retribution.

Hardly a Justice system at all

 

[Firestorm]

OBL was never claiming to be informed or she would ever find anyone guilty on a hunch.....But of course you know that, your just having a dig.

Even when we did have hanging, mitigating circumstances were always taken into account or the Home secretary could overrule a death sentence etc. Even in WW1 the vast majority of death sentences passed in a military court were commuted to life, with most released after the war.

The relatives of Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans would tend to disagree

 

[EastStandBlue]

Even when we did have hanging, mitigating circumstances were always taken into account or the Home secretary could overrule a death sentence etc. Even in WW1 the vast majority of death sentences passed in a military court were commuted to life, with most released after the war.

That's precisely my point. Mitigating circumstances only add further subjectivity to the legal system (and quite rightly so, in my opinion). If you're dealing with something in what is quite literally a life or death fashion, then how much subjectivity is practical when the consequences are the very opposite?

 

[rigsby]

Genuine question as I have not seen it as a problem, and thought is was well thought of all around the world

How is the Jury system flawed and what can be done to "un flaw" it .

Like many a good British idea such as the NHS it no longer works because of the change in society etc. One quote is 'Who want to be tried by 12 people who are to stupid to get out of jury service'. I myself did weasel out of it once as I was far to busy at the time, although having heard stories recently I would probably do it just to see.

We could never have a trial for murder with a possible death sentence in the UK anymore, people would find a person not guilty because of their own personal beliefs.

To give you an example about 10 years abo A friend of mine was on the jury at the Old Bailey for a murder trial. The defendant admitted he had shot another man 5 times but claimed it was all an accident. His story was that the victim, who he knew had given him a lift. They pulled over and it was the victim who handed him a gun to look at. Being such an innocent little angle he went to push the gun away in fear and it went off twice. The victim fell out of the door and he run round to help and accidently fired again as in a panic he forgot to drop the gun. As the victim struggled on down the road and round a corner, he unfortunately fired two more shots into his back whilst gallantly trying to help the poor man.

The initial vote was 10/2. After a few hours of discussion the 2 women who had voted not guilty announced that although they thought it certainly wasn't an accident they did not want to see a young man locked up for 25 years. The next few days descended into some of the stronger characters trying to persuade the 2 women to change their mind....The judge will be more lenient, what about the poor victims mum sobbing in court etc......Eventually he was found guilty and given life...can't remember the minimum term.

Yes its flawed but not sure what would be the best way to improve it because its obviously very complicated. That said minor assault cases etc like at Southend court don't need the expense and waste of a 12 person jury.

 

[rigsby]

Then the sentence becomes less about Punishment or rehabilitation and more about revenge or retribution.

Hardly a Justice system at all

People who murder children don't need rehabilitation. People who have just come out of prison after 3 years do.

 

[rigsby]

The relatives of Derek Bentley and Timothy Evans would tend to disagree

I did say they were taken into account, doesn't mean they had any affect. In Timothy Evans case they could not hang the lad who pulled the trigger as he was only 16. The mood at the time was similar as it is today with a fear of gun crime amongst young men rising and a Police officer had died......So he was a victim of the political climate and the fact that he had made the choice to commit crime.

Timothy Evans was found guilty so there were no mitigating circumstances just a miscarriage of justice. Although some do claim there is evidence that although he never killed his wife he still did actually killed the baby.

 

[Firestorm]

Like many a good British idea such as the NHS it no longer works because of the change in society etc. One quote is 'Who want to be tried by 12 people who are to stupid to get out of jury service'. I myself did weasel out of it once as I was far to busy at the time, although having heard stories recently I would probably do it just to see.

We could never have a trial for murder with a possible death sentence in the UK anymore, people would find a person not guilty because of their own personal beliefs.



To give you an example about 10 years abo A friend of mine was on the jury at the Old Bailey for a murder trial. The defendant admitted he had shot another man 5 times but claimed it was all an accident. His story was that the victim, who he knew had given him a lift. They pulled over and it was the victim who handed him a gun to look at. Being such an innocent little angle he went to push the gun away in fear and it went off twice. The victim fell out of the door and he run round to help and accidently fired again as in a panic he forgot to drop the gun. As the victim struggled on down the road and round a corner, he unfortunately fired two more shots into his back whilst gallantly trying to help the poor man.

The initial vote was 10/2. After a few hours of discussion the 2 women who had voted not guilty announced that although they thought it certainly wasn't an accident they did not want to see a young man locked up for 25 years. The next few days descended into some of the stronger characters trying to persuade the 2 women to change their mind....The judge will be more lenient, what about the poor victims mum sobbing in court etc......Eventually he was found guilty and given life...can't remember the minimum term.

Yes its flawed but not sure what would be the best way to improve it because its obviously very complicated. That said minor assault cases etc like at Southend court don't need the expense and waste of a 12 person jury.

The flaw with the system is what though ? That it relies on people who can't / don't want to get out of jury service ?

The anecdote was interesting, but it doesn't actually explain what the flaw is.

The biggest issue for me is it must be the difficult to find someone who is willing to listen to all the facts , understand them all , without having preconceived ideas about an individual , based on class , background , looks etc etc .

 

[Blueronron]

The flaw with the system is what though ? That it relies on people who can't / don't want to get out of jury service ?

The anecdote was interesting, but it doesn't actually explain what the flaw is.

The biggest issue for me is it must be the difficult to find someone who is willing to listen to all the facts , understand them all , without having preconceived ideas about an individual , based on class , background , looks etc etc .

And that's where it fails on all sides (a) Jury who are made up by ordinary working class, or have little or no knowledge of law, only who's lawyer can argue the best to come up with a verdict and then normally by direction of a judge (b) Judges who do/should know the law, but donot follow it through due to someones career maybe curtailed or Cambridge university place would be jeopardised (c) Cases thrown out because the police have failed to declare or have missed vital evidence

Nothing is perfect, but I trust the British system far more than any other country, and I will agree Firestorm, there will be cases of misjudgement and some will suffer for years in jail, but end of the day I believe for what it is worth a very minority in the overall system, just very very bad luck if its you who has the miscarriage of justice

UTS

 

[rigsby]

The flaw with the system is what though ? That it relies on people who can't / don't want to get out of jury service ?

The anecdote was interesting, but it doesn't actually explain what the flaw is.

The biggest issue for me is it must be the difficult to find someone who is willing to listen to all the facts , understand them all , without having preconceived ideas about an individual , based on class , background , looks etc etc .

Likewise you need someone who isn't prejudiced against the system. The police always lie, its wrong to convict for this offence etc. Either way you have answered your own question about the flaws in the system.

The Chad Evans case would be a good example. The police only charged him because he was a footballer in the first place and depending on which 12 people were on the jury you would get a different result each time. Opinion was hotly divided on the zone because some people were judging his behaviour which wasn't on trial over the facts and the clear guidance of beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore the system is flawed.

 

[Napster]

The Chad Evans case would be a good example... Therefore the system is flawed.

99% of the time, it works. Cherrypicking ones which don't does not equate to a flawed system.

 

[GBJ]

99% of the time, it works. Cherrypicking ones which don't does not equate to a flawed system.

Where do you get the figure 99% from?

I could regale various anecdotes about the ineptitude of the legal & justice system, as I'm sure we all could. I'm not saying it's totally ridiculous, it's still better than a lot of countries. But to think it carries a 99% success rate is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

 

[rigsby]

99% of the time, it works. Cherrypicking ones which don't does not equate to a flawed system.

You haven't considered the fact that there are two sides of the justice system.

Its far more than just 1% of victims who certainly don't get justice. Ask some of the women who got into Warboys cab or Simon Dobbins family. Or how about any of the victims who have been left gobsmacked as they hear the not guilty verdict whilst some thug celebrates with his family.

 

[GBJ]

The anecdote was interesting, but it doesn't actually explain what the flaw is.

The biggest issue for me is it must be the difficult to find someone who is willing to listen to all the facts , understand them all , without having preconceived ideas about an individual , based on class , background , looks etc etc .

You're answered your own question. Finding 12 people that fit that bill, is nigh on impossible, let alone the sheer number of people selected every single year to serve on juries up and down the country.

 

[Firestorm]

Likewise you need someone who isn't prejudiced against the system. The police always lie, its wrong to convict for this offence etc. Either way you have answered your own question about the flaws in the system.

The Chad Evans case would be a good example. The police only charged him because he was a footballer in the first place and depending on which 12 people were on the jury you would get a different result each time. Opinion was hotly divided on the zone because some people were judging his behaviour which wasn't on trial over the facts and the clear guidance of beyond all reasonable doubt. Therefore the system is flawed.

My question was what are the flaws you see in the system, I cant answer it myself as I did not make the statement about flaws in the first place.
I said it was an issue (and I my comments preconceived ideas did not differentiation between Defendants , witnesses , prosecution or defence)

Ched Evans was not failing of the Jury system, some may say it was a victory for our Justice system and a failure of the CPS in the first instance, but not the Jury.

As for opinion being debated on here about the case, that , IIRC was largely between personal opinion based on what people had read in the media and those stating that found guilty means guilty, again , hardly and indictment of the Jury system.

 

[Napster]

Where do you get the figure 99% from?

I could regale various anecdotes about the ineptitude of the legal & justice system, as I'm sure we all could. I'm not saying it's totally ridiculous, it's still better than a lot of countries. But to think it carries a 99% success rate is naive at best, and disingenuous at worst.

In your opinion. ps naive is a new one for me. Have you been privy to any actual court cases?

Maybe 99% is high, but anecdotal evidence is even more unscientific.

 

[Napster]

You're answered your own question. Finding 12 people that fit that bill, is nigh on impossible, let alone the sheer number of people selected every single year to serve on juries up and down the country.

But the point is the jury is 12 of your peers. (Better than the US system where the jury is selected by the attorneys). The common "man in the street" should be a person who listens to the evidence and decides on that evidence the guilt of the person.

 

[Firestorm]

You're answered your own question. Finding 12 people that fit that bill, is nigh on impossible, let alone the sheer number of people selected every single year to serve on juries up and down the country.

I see it as a difficulty, but not a flaw which requires change, also there have not been any solutions put forward.