Norris & Dobson guilty of Stephen Lawrence murder

[pork pie fox]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953

 

[Real Sharapova]

Shame the three other cretins involved have got away with it.

 

[Siouxsie]

Shame the three other cretins involved have got away with it.

let's hope this is only a temporary blip

 

[Macky]

Shame the three other cretins involved have got away with it.

On the subject of presupposition of guilt, I'm guessing that jury selection must've been a challenge for this case

 

[Siouxsie]

On the subject of presupposition of guilt, I'm guessing that jury selection must've been a challenge for this case

I don't see that. It's a fact that a group were involved. The jury had to decide whether these were 2 of that group, or a case of mistaken identity with the dodgy police methods of keeping evidence. So there must still be others who so far have got away with it.
Surely with all trials the fact that the police have managed to bring the people to court gives some presupposition of guilt?

 

[Mawsley]

From Hope Not Hate:

 

[Macky]

I don't see that. It's a fact that a group were involved. The jury had to decide whether these were 2 of that group, or a case of mistaken identity with the dodgy police methods of keeping evidence. So there must still be others who so far have got away with it.

The task of the jury was to decide if these men were guilty of murder, based solely on the evidence that was presented before the court and disregarding any prior knowledge of the case that they may have had.
Given the publicity of the case and the trial by media that has already happened, that must've made selection difficult.

Surely with all trials the fact that the police have managed to bring the people to court gives some presupposition of guilt?

No, no, no, no, no, no! Jesus wept woman, it's like Runnymede never happened

 

[The Major]

The task of the jury was to decide if these men were guilty of murder, based solely on the evidence that was presented before the court and disregarding any prior knowledge of the case that they may have had.
Given the publicity of the case and the trial by media that has already happened, that must've made selection difficult.



No, no, no, no, no, no! Jesus wept woman, it's like Runnymede never happened

I'm not entirely comfortable that the double jeopardy law has been changed, it seems, specifically for this case.That's retrospective justice surely?

Not that I have any sympathy with the evil bastards involved.

 

[Real Sharapova]

I'm not entirely comfortable that the double jeopardy law has been changed, it seems, specifically for this case.That's retrospective justice surely?

Not quite right, Major. The law was reviewed after a man who was accused of killing his fiance and found not guilty subsequently confessed to the crime. Without the law change he would have gone unpunished. With regard to your second point surely justice is justice? The number of cases that will be caught by the change was always anticipated to be small, and it has proved to be the case. For any case to be reheard the Court of Appeal must be persuaded that compelling evidence that was not presented at the first trial is now available.

 

[The Major]

Not quite right, Major. The law was reviewed after a man who was accused of killing his fiance and found not guilty subsequently confessed to the crime. Without the law change he would have gone unpunished. With regard to your second point surely justice is justice? The number of cases that will be caught by the change was always anticipated to be small, and it has proved to be the case. For any case to be reheard the Court of Appeal must be persuaded that compelling evidence that was not presented at the first trial is now available.

Laws can be changed and new laws created and if you break those laws then fair enough. I always thought you couldn't be convicted of something that happened before the law changed.

 

[Real Sharapova]

Laws can be changed and new laws created and if you break those laws then fair enough. I always thought you couldn't be convicted of something that happened before the law changed.

I see what you are getting at, but at the end of the day, they committed murder and now will be punished for it. It doesn't trouble me TBH.

 

[bocadillo]

Laws can be changed and new laws created and if you break those laws then fair enough. I always thought you couldn't be convicted of something that happened before the law changed.

Murder has always been against the law.

 

[The Major]

Murder has always been against the law.

Being tried for the same crime twice used to be as well.

Nobody has any sympathy for these evil bastards, but we should be wary of giving up our rights.

 

[bocadillo]

Being tried for the same crime twice used to be as well.

Nobody has any sympathy for these evil bastards, but we should be wary of giving up our rights.

Surely the public-at-large has a right to see criminals convicted. That being so, more have gained than have lost.

 

[The Major]

I'm more uncomfortable with this than outraged.

I'm glad that these men are in prison, but when the govt/establishment can keep moving the goalposts until they get the verdict they want, especially in such a political case like this then you wonder who/what's next.

 

[camberwell fox]

I'm more uncomfortable with this than outraged.

I'm glad that these men are in prison, but when the govt/establishment can keep moving the goalposts until they get the verdict they want, especially in such a political case like this then you wonder who/what's next.

I see what you mean Major but in this case the continuous development of DNA/evidence screening has meant that 18 years ago the police would not have had access to this compelling evidence in order for it to be presented as evidence to the jury.

 

[bocadillo]

I'm more uncomfortable with this than outraged.

I'm glad that these men are in prison, but when the govt/establishment can keep moving the goalposts until they get the verdict they want, especially in such a political case like this then you wonder who/what's next.

I would be uncomfortable if this were a 'second go' at getting a conviction on the same evidence. But that is not the case. There has to be compelling new evidence which was not available at the time of the first trial for a second trial to be allowed to take place. I think that is fair enough.

 

[camberwell fox]

I would be uncomfortable if this were a 'second go' at getting a conviction on the same evidence. But that is not the case. There has to be compelling new evidence which was not available at the time of the first trial for a second trial to be allowed to take place. I think that is fair enough.

Too slow Bobby boy!

 

[pork pie fox]

Sentences announced:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16403655

Dobson will serve a minimum of 15 years and two months and Norris 14 years and three months.

 

[Leesoh]

Laws can be changed and new laws created and if you break those laws then fair enough. I always thought you couldn't be convicted of something that happened before the law changed.

As Boc pointed out, you can only be convicted of a crime if it was a crime at the time. It's part of the European Convention on Human Rights.

ARTICLE 7
1.No one shall be held guilty of any criminal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a criminal offence under national or international law at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the criminal offence was committed.
2.This article shall not prejudice the trial and punishment of any person for any act or omission which, at the time when it was committed, was criminal according the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations.

It's also the reason that they've been sentenced as juveniles.