From what I've heard I think that Barry George had good dose of rough justice yesterday. I know I didn't hear or see all the evidence, but from what I gather it was all circumstantial. He wasn't a nice man (convicted rapist I understand) but it looks like a stitch up to me. Echoes of the Rachel Nikel (sp?) trial (the Wimbledon Common murder) in that the police find a social misfit who's a bit messed up in the head and pin the evidence around him.

In case you don't find the name familiar, George was convicted of shooting Jill Dando yesterday. Should really have stuck that at the start. Anyway, just interested to hear what you egicaketed folk think.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Answers

A Ppeal

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Looks like the crux was that the jury were given no indication of his previous history and reached their verdict, although not unanimous, based purely on the circumstantial put up by the prosecution.

Whether or not any or all of them knew about him from other sources might raise a few eyebrows, but either way, bliddy good riddance, I reckon.

Typically though, it probably won't take the rags long to unearth huge numbers who 'always thought there was something funny about him, but what can you do ?', with obscene amounts of cash changing hands for the juicier stories. Yawn yawn.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

If he's a rapist he should already be in jail for life IMHO and this case would not have arisen. (Assuming it was stranger-rape as opposed to date rape which can be qualitatively different IMHO). I find it remarkable that the fact the man is a rapist is withheld from the jury. I should have thought that fact is very material in judging his character. Presumably they are able to introduce testimony of their GOOD character and conveniently sweep this stuff under the carpet. Extraordinary.

I doubt if an injustice has been done here. I was interested in his reaction when the verdict was given. Impassive according to the Radio news. If I was an innocent man and was mistakenly convicted of a crime like that I'd be dragged away screaming I'm sure.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I'm not conviced he did it either, the evidence was laughable! 1 speck of gun residue from a possibly contaminated testing process....

Still the other side of the coin is that he's not a nice guy and anyone who rapes should get life (or death!) in my book....

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Guilty as sin I reckon. All that bollocks about contaminated evidence put up by his layers was the OJ defence, thinking if OJ got away with it...

And that guy re Rachel Nickel - he was almost certainly the one, the police knew, and couldn't get the right evidence so tried to set him up on a sting. They were so sure it was him, that he had in fact got away with murder, that they specifically stated after the trial was stopped that they 'are NOT seeking anyone else in connection to the murder'. Meaning - we got the bastard but couldn't prove it.

The police DO make mistakes, sometimes big ones, but they usually get it right, especially nowadays with the media so sure that a Birmingham 6 conspiracy is always in the background.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I can't understand how they convicted him on such flimsy evidence he wasn't even Irish

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Colin Stag, was the guy set up for the Wimbledon murder. I understand he was a sad loner who said he did it to impress the police plant (who suggested to him "it would be great if you did it" by way of getting him to confess). The fact the police have given up on the case says to me they know they have little chance of finding the person responsible so late after the event.

The evidence connecting George having some sort of obsession to Dando was limited to say the least. Having a selection of magazines that had her picture in them would condemn many. He never followed her, he had obsessions with other famous people like Freddie Mercury but never stalked them, he had never been connected with any type of firearm for about 15 years (and that was an airgun, I think), they never found the gun, and the bullet was doctored (which your common nutter is highly unlikely to do). And the firearm residue was never conclusively linked to the murder weapon - if I remember correctly it "may" have been. Also the witnesses who spoke of a man running from the scene failed to ID him in parades.

I'm sure I did hear he had a dubious past, including rape (maybe wrong), and if the worse is true then prison is the least punishment. But I feel there's too many ifs and not enough hard evidence.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I tried to explain to my kids last night why I felt so uncomfortable about the conviction. I then tried to explain about the Birmingham and Guildford cases. "But why would the police do that ?" was a very hard question to answer

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

If the defence mention a defendant's "good" character then the prosecution are allowed to challenge that by mentioning his previous.

I suppose this means that if you are on a jury and the defence don't mention the defendant's character.... then he has previous!

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Colin Stag knew stuff about the Rachel Nickel murder scene that was not released to the public ,but that was inadmissable as evidence because it was only told to the undercover wpc. The police are not looking for anyone else because they believe they got the right man. Also according to the forensic phycologist on the case the chances of a man having the same sadistic fantasies being on the common at the same time are millions to one.

As for Barry George I haven't really followed the case, but from all the stories that are being unearthed now, he probably should have been in jail now anyway.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

i read that it was attempted rape, he was convicted for. The bloke seems a few shillings short of a quid and a danger to women but that does not give the police licence to fit him up.

Every time they do this they let the guilty man off the hook. WHY are they no longer investigating the Nickell murder, purely because they had their collective wrist slapped for trying to fit up Stag. The undercover police woman said she'd sleep with him if he confessed for chrissakes! Desperate or what?

How many rapists, child-killers, bombers etc are running about free because the police want a quick result and pull in a handy Irishman or mentally subnormal loner?

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I've had a look at some news stuff and it was indeed attempted rape. Still a full-on twat offence, but there you go. He was also found in Kensington Palace gardens in the 1980s wearing pseudo-militaria gear and in posession of a knife and a rope. Also acquited of attempted assault.

Obviously deranged, but today the local health authority said in their dealings with him and in their professional opinion he was a loon but not dangerous in any way. So, not a nice man which is probably what swayed the majority verdict.

As for the Nickel murder - I went to school nearby the Common. Nasty business. We used to go for crafty smokes and drink there and the murder shat us all up big style. Stag is a loser but I don't think he's a murderer.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Like I said I didn't follow the Jill Dando case, and I gather really apart from the tenious gun powder forensics there was only circumstantial evidence, but I wasn't a juror so don't know what I'd make of it. However I did follow the Rachel Nickel case and I still believe Colin Stagg got away with it because the police were very badly advised by the CPS who said the evidence would be admissable as long they didn't lead Stagg by telling him the sort of stuff that was done to Rachel. Yes I think that trying to get a confession out of him by basically offering the wpc as bait went way too far, but he had already incriminated himself by describing the murder scene to her.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

ever read Paul Brittons two books (criminal physchologist) especially the first one where he talked about advising on the Nickell case and the sting which he set-up - and its failures....

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Roly - Yeah I've read Paul Britton's "The Jigsaw Man". Like I said I think the sting went too far, that doesn't mean Colin Stagg wasn't guilty.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

It's unfortunate but a defendent's "previous" cannot be taken into account as that would, the law argues, be prejudicial to the accused. The rationale for this is that the facts in the case at hand are all that matters. My mate was recently on a jury and they found this bloke not guilty of raping little boys because the evidence wasn't great. She was devastated to learn subsequently that he had more than 10 convictions for child molesting. This is only in court, however: the police and Crown Prosecution Service are obviously privy to this information and, I am told, take it into account before deciding whether to go ahead with a prosecution. The criminal justice system in this country need urgent rethinking: whether it be abolition of the double jeopardy rule, sentencing of minors and length of custodial sentences for crimes against the person. However, the actual mechanics of administering justice need even more urgent debate.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I heard via a TV debate or something that the double jeopardy thing is going to be changed so that if new evidence is unearthed they can re-arrest somebody who'd previously been acquitted. About time, too.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Sorry to rant on !

Forensic science was my chosen career path so I have a big interest in this sort of thing ,probably down to my Dad being Coroner of North Tyneside and South Northumberland.

I'll shut up shall I ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Pit Bill - there has been a Law Commission report that recommended the abolition of the rule and I believe that it is being legislated upon at the moment.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Double jeopardy rule is tricky. I'd rather stick with what we have than risk an almighty f**k up. Same with doing away with trial by jury. We may all think of exceptions where the law is seen to have released the guilty, but I'd rather the guilty were let off than innocents imprisoned.

It's amazing how readily some people will give up their hard fought rights. Voting, protesting, jury trials, right to silence...

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Bobby, as I understand it, there will be a strict requirement for additional evidence before there can be a retrial. I'm not sure that many of our legal principles have been that hard fought - we've had trial by jury and Habeas Corpus etc for centuries. It's all relative: we don't have a written constitution or a realistic Bill of Rights (although we now have a Human Rights Act) because there's been no real need to have them. Ask the French or the Irish whether their constitutions are important and they'll be coming from the perspective of people who genuinely HAVE fought for their rights.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Having recently sat on a Jury, in a particularly nasty case which involved offences against a child, I can tell you that if the Jury had been aware of the defendant's 'previous' he would have had no chance whatsoever of a fair trial in a case that required the most intense concentration on the detailed evidence over several days.
I just know that knowledge of his actual previous - which was divulged after our verdict had been delivered - would have short- circuited our considerations, guaranteed.

Regarding evidence, the reality is that only rarely does a "smoking gun" exist. Most cases are determined on a body of small pieces of evidence plus, importantly, the testimony of the defendant and winesses and how they behave under questioning.

Having recently been through it, I suspect the real problem with the Jury system is that, in the absence of a "smoking gun", a Jury needs real balls to convict - it is so much easier to conclude that the evidence just isn't totally compelling.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

It's surely not that hard to explain why the police might 'fit up' people for certain crimes Macbeth, even to a little lad. The Dando case and the Birmingham 6 & Guildford 4 cases are all high profile cases that led to public outrage. This leads to pressure on the police to get a result and throw in a little anti-irish prejudice (harder to explain)or a vulnerable bloke with behavioural problems and hey presto you get a conviction.

I understand that the double jeopardy rule will only be amended so that a re-trial will occur where there is an exceptional development/further evidence uncovered. I am more concerned that people think it might be alright for a jury to be made aware of past convictions as of right - past convictions for child abuse or attempted rape do not automatically make someone guilty of the crime in question - if there is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the person committed the crime then they should walk. Anyone who thinks otherwise - I hope you never get wrongly charged...

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I know absolutely nowt about trials, constitutions, whatever etc.. Call me an ignorant fool. Infact call me a makkem (only joking, never under any circumstances call me a makkem, or I'll see my lawyer about defamation and sue your arse).....

But whats bugging me is: IF Barry George decides on having an appeal, do you think the papers and other media should be barred from reporting opinions?

Do any of you think that any reporting opinions at this stage goes against human rights?

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I pinch sweets from Woolies as a kid, is that vaild to be brought up if I'm charged with armed robbery on a bank.

What if I still had the sweets in my pocket ?

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

.... and what if there as a hole in your pocket?

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

This is hairy stuff. I have to disagree with Bobby. I'd find it an acceptible risk that I might end up being unjustly convicted if I knew that the real scumbags had less chance of avoiding justice.

It would all depend on the proportion of wrongful convictions compared with justified convictions. I would find something like one wrongful conviction in every hundred thousand acceptible. Probably higher if the death penalty is included. For me, it's no less acceptible than the risks I run just driving my car, or even walking the streets.

Maybe Doug or anybody else who might know, can tell us if that has ever been researched.

I'd also have to be a lot happier that the means hadn't been distorted because of justifiable ends, which has the appearance of possibly having happened in the Jill Dando case.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Dougs - as I understand it, the right to be tried by ones peers was established by a case where the jury refusing to be ordered to convict on the judges instruction and suffered imprisonment for contempt. It was show trial for a religious heretic I think. There were near riots at the time. I think it was in the 17th century (?) but although long ago it was certainly hard fought for.

I would also argue that many legal principals, such as the right to silence, free legal representation, charges being brought and a trial within a reasonable time have been hard fought for by those who suffered when such rights were not recognised.

Whatever the history of it, the rights of the citizen (although we're all HM loyal subjects...monarchy, eh!) in this country are being slowly but assuredly eroded. The odd case that reaches the front page of The Sun and reactionary middle class tabloids (S-Express, Mail et al) showing abuses of these rights also fail to cover the many 1,000s of people who have been saved from the persecution of the state. No, I will not go into each case one by one :-)

Less government, less interference with judiciary and a reform of the police / CPS is the way forward.

Vote for reason
Vote for justice
Vote Bobby! ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

You've got my vote mate....the police have their rotten core just like society and we can't afford to let them get away with destroying innocent peoples lives just to further their careers....

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Pit Bull - I think it's very different risk driving your car to being convicted of a serious crime to did not commit. For a start a car does not hunt you out and brandish you as a monster if you have an accident. Nor after an accident do you get buggered in the showers :- ) I'm not even going to start on death penalties!

At a guess I would say that criminals usually get caught one way or the other. Everyone probably has some anacdotal evidence about this or that, but IMO if we find it acceptable to imprison the innocent just to have a greater chance of imprisoning the guilty we'll all be in serious trouble.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

I'm with Rob on this.

Free the Spanish One

Marcelino may be legally part of NUFC, but his spirit soars as the eagle over the Sierra Madre.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

The change to the double jepourdy rule is scarey. There had to be new evidence & the case hase to be returned to court at the highest level but knowing that one of the most intellegent legal minds in the land has considered the evedence in the case to be "compelling" enough to retry, what jury would feel comfortable in returning a second "not guilty".

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Whenever I get concerned about the health of this bbs along comes a thread like this to restore my faith.
Where else could you get such diverse and quality discussions? Great stuff - and nice to see 'outsiders' like Roly Gregoire getting involved in the more serious stuff.

-- Anonymous, July 03, 2001

Bobby
I was spouting from the innocent victim's point of view. In one case I'm the poor bugga who just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when they were looking for somebody on whom to pin a murder. In the other, I'm the poor bugga who just happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when some clown comes off the road and wipes me out.

I can't see why the innocent victim of an incident involving road transport is any less innocent than the victim of a wrongful conviction for murder, but there's no way the use of all motorised transport would be banned just in case somebody piles into an innocent passerby, so why should there be a ban on capital punishment just in case a murder gets pinned on an 'innocent passerby' ?

As far as I'm concerned, the risks of it happening to me would be acceptible if it helped to ensure that those who, by their actions, forfeit the right to be treated as human beings, are prevented from repeating those actions.

Commit treason, or 'run away in the face of the enemy', and you'll be 'capitally punished'. As far as I'm concerned, they're far less heinous than what Hindley, the Ripper and the West's did, and I don't think many would mourn the passing of any of those, or even give a s**t about whether or not they can be re-habilitated.

I don't disagree, though, what takes the edge off the way I see it is, bad as it might be to be done for being in the wrong place at the wrong time, you're definitely one of life's losers when the books start being cooked to make it look as if you weren't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

its a tough one isnt it.... ive never sat on a jury and hope to never have to (unless its a juicy "archeresque" case!!!)....

but the beauty about our legal structure is that its been tried tested and nurtered over decades and centuries and when changes have been required they have been made..... i cant think of the reasons (i'm a commericail banker with apassing interest in commericail law) off hand but there must be reasons as to why double jeapourdy doesnt apply now and why a presons previous is not admitted into court....

in teh cases of the birmingham and guildford convictions (leaving aside the wrongful convictions) most of the defendants had previous anyway so its a bit of a paradox..... if you argue for disclosure....

what i do agree with is that George has been convicted on very circumstancial evidence and there is no law against being a "nutter" with an interest in paramiltary activities.... BUT.... as soon as his lawyers announced there would be a retrial the judge (it should be automatic) should have banned all reporting by the media.... the stuff that appeared in the press over the last couple of days must prejudice a fair re-trial....

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

I know we don't want to go down this route but capital punshment has been raised.

Who on earth really thinks the threat of capital punishment will stop somebody committing a murder. Is the person doing the murder weighing up in their mind the thought of the punishment if they are caught when they are committing the act ? I would guess most murderers believe they won't get caught, or are so pumped up and in an aggressive state of mind that they couldn't be stopped anyway.

I understand why there may be a requirement for punishment but I don't go with the deterrent side of the argument.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Pit Bull mate, I'll remind you of how much good you're doing for justice while you're picking up the soap in the prison showers :-)

I think I get the point you're making about injustice with your road traffic accident analogy, but if you allow me to continue it...the car that causes the accident doesn't spend a year making the case for why you should be run over, then convincing 12 people off the street that you should be run over, and then while you're in hospital tell everyone just how much better society is now you're not able to walk any more :-)

Also, state sponsored homicide is pretty much as barbaric and pointless an act as I can think of (apart from supporting SAFC). It serves no purpose other than to satisfy a sense of an eye for an eye. And if you'll excuse the big hunk of cheese, that leads to everyone being blind. As an aside it was interesting to hear that a number of victims and their families from the Oklahoma bombing were against executing McVeigh (sp?).

Also, I was on jury service last September (three cases and was foreman for all of them...better than being an alsoran ;-) ) and found it a very interesting experience. Some cases were a complete joke, but there was a very real sense of duty and responsibility among the jurors. However, there were some proper tosspots who made their minds up as soon as they caught sight of the defendent. Nevertheless I'd rather trust them than a single judge any day.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

The 'tosspots' theory is what occurred to me Bobby - we had a few on my jury. That is why I concluded that if we had been told the defendants 'previous' ahead of time, they may as well have dispensed with the rest of the trial, and just locked him up.
As it was we found him guilty after extensive debate, and even then only on a majority verdict.

Interestingly, the two who felt his guilt had not been proven 'beyond reasonable doubt' were inconsolable after they had learned of his previous.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Aye, we had one similar that was borderline and went to majority verdict. I had doubts over some evidence, but felt that the just thing was to find him guilty. Again, previous evidence showed a bit of a nasty character.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Differing viewpoints well discussed by all concerned. Let me, however, ask this:

If you are on trial for shooting someone, when residue from a gun is found in your coat pocket, a coat that you say has not been out of your possession, do you say that you have never had a gun? Then upon conviction photos are shown of you holding a gun? A photo that you must know the prosecutors have, because all lawyers have to tell the opposing side what evidence they have and may present.

Not wishing to enter the pro/con side of Capital Punishment, if I was going to commit a robbery I would think twice about what I was doing if I thought that if I killed someone I too would be killed.

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Bobby
Apologies if I'm picking this up wrongly, but you seem to be putting the car in the position of the prosecuting attorney.

My analogy would be that car plus driver are the murderer, and in the situation we're discussing, it wouldn't be the car etc that actually hit the 'innocent bystander' that was blamed, but some other poor bugga who happened to be driving by at the time. Either way the bystander is just as unnecessarily dead, if death can ever be said to be 'necessary'. I happen to believe so, in certain circumstances.

The point I'm trying to make is why have one set of rules in one case and a different set in the other. I realise it's down to practicalities - you couldn't have the whole of the civilised world grinding to a halt just so some poor bugga walking along the path minding his own business won't end up smashed to a pulp by a car or whatever piling into him.

Your point about picking up the soap in the clink toilet is valid, but I see that sort of thing as an integral part of the risks I'd be prepared to accept, and you never know, there might still be something I don't yet know about myself :-))

-- Anonymous, July 04, 2001

Ah, got what you mean now :-) But the process of investigation and prosecution etc should be good enough to ensure that the innocent other driver would be eliminated from the enquiry. The fact that a case is based on circumstantial evidence (i.e. the defendent was driving a car near the fatality) is worrying. I think that would lead to lazy policing whereby anybody would do if a case could be brought against them, whether or not the facts objectively and conclusively prove one way or the other.

I'll just say that a civilised society must base its law and conduct on protecting the innocent (discuss...this exam paper is 1 1/2 hrs)

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Bobby
That's my main dilemma. I'm prepared to take the risk of being the innocent bystander, all things being equal, but when 'legal productivity' introduces bias I'd be forced to have second thoughts.

I don't have a problem with using wholly circumstantial evidence as long as every second is accounted for. Even a gap in the sequence of only, say, 5 minutes, should put the whole sequence in question.

And as far as I understand it, circumstantial can never be completely conclusive anyway, it always comes down to 'is it more likely that what is being put forward as having happened, is satisfactorily explained by the circumstantial evidence rather than isn't.

Whether or not that's the way it works, I don't know, but there probably haven't been that many cases where the evidence was wholly circumstantial. I'd imagine in the majority of cases there are always some items of physical evidence, the circumstantial being used as backup, or the case wouldn't come to court. Or is that too idealistic an outlook ?

The acceptibility of circumstanial evidence in a case where a person's life may be on the line, though, is another avenue of debate.

I take the point that the legal system should ideally bend over backwards to protect the innocent, but what makes me question the degree of bending is that other innocents end up being involved who otherwise wouldn't if the law hadn't left loopholes that could be exploited, Not having a death penalty for certain kinds of civil crime I see as a loophole.

I think that what weakens the case of a lot of people who favour capital punishment is the argument that capitally punishing one criminal might deter others. The only person who should be deterred, permanently, if found guilty, is the particular one currently being considered. I don't think it matters at all if there's no deterrent effect. Any that might exist should be seen as no more than a bonus.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

in a particularly nasty case which involved offences against a child, I can tell you that if the Jury had been aware of the defendant's 'previous' he would have had no chance whatsoever of a fair trial

I assume then that the 'previous' involved offences against children? It seems to me that the the public and the victims should get more from the so-called "fair trial". I infer from your example that the previous trial was not fair as the offender should have been shut away such that no reoccurence can happen. The primary function of prison IMHO is not punishment but the protection of those outside. Habitual offenders against children should never be released. It is a sick joke for such an offender to claim that they have "paid their debt to society" which is the monstrously stupid phrase I hear from defence lawyers and criminals from time to time. The damage they caused will never be repaired, their debt to society will always remain unpaid. They may well have been wronged in their own childhoods. Very, very sad but let's not allow the thing to perpetuate to yet further generations of victims.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

The right to be tried by one's peers was brought in to protect the gentry from having their affairs poked into by the hoy-polloy. If you care to consider that noble sentiment the birth of democracy then I suggest you check under "capitalism" in the dictionary for a more likely candidate :-)

When the capital punishment debate is distilled down to its roots it is all about revenge, as macbeth has already pointed out. If it was about righting a wrong then the death of the murderer would bring the victim back to life. The real question is what is wrong with revenge? All this namby-pamby, cotton wool thinking to protect us from the beast within is actually an elitist minority deciding that they know what is best for the overwhelming majority of the population. Where's the democracy and justice in that?

Pass me my black cap. Rapists, paedophiles, the bloke who nicked my wheelie bin, string 'em all up.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Can I return the bin softie? ;)

I'm with you on this one....hang em all.....but ONLY if there is NO reasonable doubt!

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Democracy and justice are not always compatible. And the right to be tried by an independent jury was established by commoners.

Death penalty solves nothing. Neither does it punish, protect society from similar outrages, or provide the well worn Americanism 'closure'. I think it is a barbaric act that lowers all who participate. No crime, no matter how heinous, can possibly justify the taking of a life. No, I'm not an all out pascifist, but in the cold light of day such a deliberate judicial authorised act of homicide is morally wrong.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

It's an interesting point Softie. Capital Punishment and Democracy. Am I right in saying that a substantial majority of the population want Capital Punishment? So what is this Democracy thing I keep hearing about?

I'm actually against the death penalty but only marginally and I doubt if I would join protest marches if it was brought in. I'm sure there's a substantial number of potential jury members who could not bring themselves to convict an individual who might be executed. But I've always been intrigued by the fact that the majority seem to want it and yet can't have it. How is this Democracy thingy supposed to work then?

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

That's not democracy, that's the tyranny of the majority

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

That's the first time I've ever heard the Nobility who forced John to sign the Magna Carta at Runnymede described as "commoners" :-)

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

The Birmingham and Guildford lot wouldn't be a living embarrassment now if there'd been a death penalty in the 1970s, they'd be Irish martyrs for another generation to feed off.

It could be said the Bloody Sunday and Gibraltar killings were just pre-emptive death penalties, huge numbers of deaths followed on as a consequence. Killing doesn't solve anything just changes the focus slightly.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Bobby
If it's tyranny of the majority, what's democracy ? Surely they're the same thing from different viewpoints.

I would also argue that it does protect society from similar outrages, cos if you're dead you can't do it again. The deterrent, or any other, effect on future occurrences is irrelevant IMO, other than as a fortuitous bonus, if it does happen to make somebody else think twice.

'Closure', for me, is one of those psycho babble 'in you head' terms, which I think can have a spectrum of values after a range of conditions have been satisfied, the main one probably being revenge, whether we like it or not. One man's meat is another man's poison kind of thing.

The larger the group for which closure might be desired, the smaller the number of conditions that need to be satisfied. So for society at large, I believe the very fact that we have deprived a monster of the ability to be repeatedly monstrous would be sufficient 'closure', and I wouldn't argue if this can only be termed 'mass revenge'.

It would be sufficient for me to know that this particular monster now couldn't rape and murder one of my children, for example, however many times he'd got away with it previously. My feelings for the previous victims would then be part of the closure equation in my case. Other people's closure variables would be different. And for the immediate family of the previous victims, some might never achieve closure, whatever is done.

AFAIC, it's dead simple. 'You are being capitally punished to ensure that you, and you alone, in this instance, will be permanently deprived of the ability to re-offend in the same way.'

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

'You are being capitally punished to ensure that you, and you alone, in this instance, will be permanently deprived of the ability to re- offend in the same way.'

Surely the same argument could be used for life imprisonment or maybe castration or lobotomy.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Softie - those juries were still pretty much directed as the judge ordered. There was a famous incident (so famous I can't remember it...must research more :-) ) where a controversial religous type (sort of Lutheran) was harranged for some trumped up charge. Anyways, the jury acquited and refused to obey the judges order to find him guilty. They were all imprisoned to think about their decision, and on returning to the court still found him not guilty. Apparently it was quite regular in the 17thC for juries to be fined for finding acquital. It caused a big stink at the time. Curses, I should have taken notes from Melvin Bragg's In Our Time.

OK, found this piece of quote for you... :-)

Sir John Hawles, The English-man's Right, pages 10-11 (1680) (Solicitor-General of England in the reign of William III).

"But if by finding against the Direction of the Court in matter of Law, shall be understood, that if the Judge having heard the Evidence given in Court, (for he can regularly know no other, though the Jury may) shall tell the Jury upon this Evidence, the Law is for the Plaintiff, or the Defendant, and the Jury are under pain of Fine and Imprisonment to Find accordingly; then 'tis plain the Jury ought of Duty so to do. Now if this were true, who sees not that the Jury is but a troublesome Delay, of great Charge, much Formality, and no real use in determining right and wrong, but meer Ecchos to sound back the pleasure of the Court; and consequently that Tryals by them might be better abolish'd than continued? which is at once to spit Folly in the Faces of our Venerable Ancestors, and enslave our Posterity."

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Sorry, that should be pages 28-29 ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Thanks Bobby, the revised page numbers made all the difference. :-))

That's a very fair point Dread and if it could be shown that castration or lobotomy would have exactly the same deterrent effect as death, they might be acceptible alternative forms of capital punishment.

What would worry me though is that the unwanted side effects of either would probably be little better than a kind of lasting torture, which, believe it or not, would be the last thing I'd want from capital punishment. Prevent the individual from re-offending by all means, but no prolonged torture.

I'm treading on eggs here, because the capital punishment that involves execution, must include a certain amount of suffering, and as long as that was kept to an absolute minimum, I'd have to make a conscious decision to accept it as inevitable.

As for life imprisonment, I can argue only on economic grounds and the worry that it's just another form of torture. Lock them up and chuck the key away. If that's more acceptible than execution, fair enough.

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

All good stuff Bobby, but the right to be judged by one's peers stems from Magna Carta which I'm blowed if I can remember was 1201 or 1205. Anyway, it was designed to stop the King imprisoning folk without trial and then making them pay hard cash for release. The Victorians dusted down this document and hailed it as the birth of democracy (what about the Greeks, eh? Apparently not nearly British enough). Sadly, they neglected to notice that the Nobility and gentry with the cash to qualify also claimed to have the good of the commoners at heart and hence speak for them and could be considered their peers, whilst the only peers of the nobility and gentry would naturally be other landed folk so yah boo sucks to you horrid peasants.

I submitted a copy of Magna Carta as an appendix to a history thesis and got a slap for being cheeky. They did say to pretend that the examiner knows nothing and we were looking at the English Civil War...it may have taken 400 years but it was inevitable after Runnymede, just making sure he'd taken a peek at it :-)

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Mention of the events at Runnymede brings to mind one of my favourite excerpts from Hancock. East Cheam's most famous resident is making an impassioned speech (to a jury I seem to recall).

"Does Magna Carta mean nothing to you? DID SHE DIE IN VAIN?"

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

Magna Carta which I'm blowed if I can remember was 1201 or 1205

Come on then everybody - all together now -

no Softie I think it was about half past four.

:-)

-- Anonymous, July 05, 2001

However much I like you Softie, I'm not blowing you.

Yeah, yeah, Magnum Carter ok. I'll revise my bit and say independent juries.

Bloody historians... ;-)

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Wow, this is scary......well it scares the shit out me anyway!!

http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_345844.html

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

There you go Pit Bull - explain to this lad why his 14 years in choky was worth the greater sacrifice :-) Eeeeh, he must have a ring like a bruised tomato...

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Howweh Bobby. what do you expect me to say ?

He's one of the poor buggas who was in the wrong place at the wrong time, but as long as the other 99.9999 percent of executions were of scumbags who were guilty, I would accept those odds.

I obviously don't know what the actual proportions are, but if we did have the death penalty and it could be shown that the proportion of 'correct' executions was vastly greater than that of 'faulty' executions, that would do me.

If it ever happened that even just one percent of executions could be proved to have been in error, I wouldn't hesitate to substitute some other form of capital punishment.

And as an aside, even the term we've chosen to describe it indicates the purpose, or, if not, why not call it capital rehabilitation ? I think we're kidding ourselves if we see it as anything other than punishment and revenge, whatever form it takes.

Okay, technically, capital punishment is the death penalty, and I've sometimes just been been using the term as a convenient way to describe the most severe punishment a particular legal system allows

As I said earlier, I couldn't care less whether or not Hindley and her ilk have even the capability of being rehabilitated. I wouldn't waste the resources. But of course you're right, there's always the poor bugga who didn't do it, which looks more like my problem than that of those who accept the system the way it is. That's fair enough, I reckon.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

I think you hit the argument there mate - I don't accept anything less than a perfect judicial system. I believe that as soon as society says about reaching justice "well, that's as heck close enough for me" we will fail someone, somewhere (like yon feller tucking his prolapse back as he walks to freedom) and that can't be right.

It is an ideal, and probably never realised but it doesn't make it any the less desirable.

On another aside, (hey, you started it ;-) ) would you think it acceptable that your old gran was murdered by Harold Shipman even though the vast majority of doctors save lives? What I mean is, if a system is in place to protect the public (justice, medicine, transport etc) and it fails to do so, there is an obligation to put it right.

Tell yer lads, there's a great view on top of this horse ;-) I'll get down now

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Sorry, I've come late to this thread and have nothing worthwhile to say except that King John did not SIGN Magna Carta in 1215 because be couldn't actually write! He used one of those dirty great seal things,.

Cue very ancient joke; "Where was Magna Carta signed? At the bottom!"

Time for bed.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

An interesting little yarn here illustrates there was a time when we did not mess about with these things. The other day I was in a pub in the New Forest "The Alice Lisle" in Rockford Green near Ringwood. I picked up a card describing who Alice Lisle was. Apparently her fame derives from having sheltered some rebel soldiers after the battle of Sedgemoor and she was tried for treason. She was found guilty and was ordered (by Judge Jeffries) to be burned at the stake.

This caused a public outcry such that "the sentence was commuted - she was beheaded in Winchester".

Bliddy namby pamby do-gooders eh? Treason - yet she got away with being beheaded. It's to be hoped that some vigilantes dug her up and burned the remains.

Mind, she did not die in vain - it's a very nice pub.

-- Anonymous, July 06, 2001

Lovely story Jonno, who needs soap operas when the truth can be so much more entertaining :-)

Forgetting the date of Magna Carta despite getting a first for my work on the Angevins. Deeply worrying. The brain is clearly full and things are sloshing out of the sides. I won't post the whole of it on here (unless you're interested) but here are 2 of the articles which give you an idea of what it was really all about:

20. For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced save through their peers, and only according to the measure of the offence.

The Victorians had that dangerous combination of crushing arrogance and meticulous and painstaking hard work. They dug out hundreds of thousands of medieval documents and transcribed them and numbered them and filed them and yet never understood a single one of them. They had developed a linear approach to history where you follow humanity's progress from the dawn of time to the perfection of the present day. Obviously each discovery and invention along the way adds to the understanding and intelligence of humanity until we reach our state of glory (circa 1860 by their reckoning).

Finding themselves to be at the heart of the world and the cradle of civilization they then set about proving it. Common sense and a look around the world at the alternatives showed them that Constitutional Monarchy was perfection and that the English system of law had no peers. Suitably fortified with brandy and cigars with chests puffed out like bantams, they pored over the collected (and neatly filed and numbered) documents of our forefathers and picked out anything they could to demonstrate how the Englishman has advanced towards glory and world domination one step at a time.

Magna carta has it all. You can see here the birth of the jury system based on your peers as a RIGHT. A jury up until this time had been a far more interesting beast. It was composed in the exact opposite way to its successor: the jury was made up of those who knew the most about an incident - ignorance of the matter ensured your preclusion from the trial (can't help but think they had a point!). However, far from being about the Rights of Man this was entirely about the landed class protecting themselves and their property from the greedy hands of the King.

Magna Carta is no stepping stone towards constitutional monarchy as some pre-ordained and natural order of advancement, it is a document from a time where money was speaking louder than the old loyalties, where the barons preferred to pay scutage (shield tax) for the king to raise an army of mercenaries rather than smite his enemies in person. The reality also introduced a delightfully fiendish and untrustworthy monarch in John, who had found so many cunning ways to raise money outside of the general taxation (over which he had no control) that this document was brought in to decide who owned what and how that ownership should be passed from one to another. Certainly a significant moment for capitalism but only a marker on the road to democracy (the Victorians didn't see that one coming!) if you are actively seeking one because it needs to be there to support your idea of progress being linear.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2001

What gets me on my high horse is when the facts of a case are all too periperal and presentation takes over. This means that the better "showman" lawyers, usual the big earners, come away lessening a crime or pulling off an against the odds aquittal. Justice favours the rich.

-- Anonymous, July 07, 2001

Bobby
Regarding your Harold Shipman point, under a system which included the death penalty, I'd have to accept the odds of that happening. I don't see it as much different from the case of the guy reprieved after donkey's years by virtue of dna testing, except in the Shipman scenario there'd be no comeback. Plus, Shipman did commit the crimes, in your first example, the guy didn't. But, again, it's my problem.

The immediacy of the relationship between me and the victim just changes my closure variables in relation to a case were the victim wasn't so closely related. But it obviously doesn't mean that I have a death wish for my granny, or for that matter, any of the victims.

As for the system failing some poor bugga who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and chucking your argument back at you :-), how would you feel if your old granny was bumped off by a scum bag who, if we'd had a death penalty, would never have been in a position to be released to re-offend in the same way as when he was originally brought to justice, after supposedly having paid his debt to society ?

-- Anonymous, July 09, 2001