Norris & Dobson guilty of Stephen Lawrence murder

[spionfox]

I heard somebody on the radio talking about applying sentencing as if we were back at the time the crime was committed.

The most interesting bit went along the lines of if the death penalty had been in force at that time would it still be applied now. Of course it wouldn't so why can't current sentencing apply now.

Seems some would have it both ways.

 

[Matt_B]

I heard somebody on the radio talking about applying sentencing as if we were back at the time the crime was committed.

The most interesting bit went along the lines of if the death penalty had been in force at that time would it still be applied now. Of course it wouldn't so why can't current sentencing apply now.

Seems some would have it both ways.

Why wouldn't it? The law seems to indicate it would.

 

[Biffa Bacon]

Why wouldn't it? The law seems to indicate it would.

The UK has signed up to various binding treaties which make the application of a death sentence impossible and/or illegal.

 

[Mawsley]

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 only right relinquished was that of, quite literally, getting away with murder?

 

[The Major]

Surely the only right relinquished was that of, quite literally, getting away with murder?

I didn't really expect a lot of agreement when I made my comment.

Everybody assumes that these men are guilty and they probably are but what if they are not?If they had been found not guilty again would we have had another trial and another until the govt got the verdict they want?I'm sure there are other cases that this new law could apply to but probably won't because it's not politically expedient, there are no brownie points for a conviction. That cannot be justice surely?

 

[Biffa Bacon]

I didn't really expect a lot of agreement when I made my comment.

Everybody assumes that these men are guilty and they probably are but what if they are not?If they had been found not guilty again would we have had another trial and another until the govt got the verdict they want?I'm sure there are other cases that this new law could apply to but probably won't because it's not politically expedient, there are no brownie points for a conviction. That cannot be justice surely?

I'm sorry but have you read any of the previous posts, a second trial is only possible with compelling new evidence, if a prosecution fails with that it can't be used for a 3rd trial.

 

[The Major]

I didn't think I'd convince anyone.

 

[Mawsley]

Everybody assumes that these men are guilty and they probably are but what if they are not?If they had been found not guilty again would we have had another trial and another until the govt got the verdict they want?I'm sure there are other cases that this new law could apply to but probably won't because it's not politically expedient, there are no brownie points for a conviction. That cannot be justice surely?

Eh?

I'm ****ed if I can understand your point. You mean that you believe the only reason this case was retried was because it was a black victim?

I believe I saw a jpg copied from Facebook expressing similar views yesterday.

 

[Macky]

I didn't think I'd convince anyone.

I understood your point Major, we definitely should be very wary of any measure that may impede our rights.
I do understand that with me agreeing with you, what little credence your argument had has now been shot to pieces. I apologise for that.

 

[The Major]

Eh?

I'm ****ed if I can understand your point. You mean that you believe the only reason this case was retried was because it was a black victim?

I believe I saw a jpg copied from Facebook expressing similar views yesterday.

That's not what I'm saying, I'm talking about principles not this specific case. I'm obviously not putting my point across very well so I'm going to stop trying.

I wouldn't know about facebook, I don't use it.

 

[The Major]

I understood your point Major, we definitely should be very wary of any measure that may impede our rights.
I do understand that with me agreeing with you, what little credence your argument had has now been shot to pieces. I apologise for that.

I appreciate that Macky, if anyone was going to agree with me I thought it would be you.

 

[SJN-Fox]

Seems that new information has come to light since the conviction ...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-16413433

 

[indierich06]

I didn't really expect a lot of agreement when I made my comment.

Everybody assumes that these men are guilty and they probably are but what if they are not?If they had been found not guilty again would we have had another trial and another until the govt got the verdict they want?I'm sure there are other cases that this new law could apply to but probably won't because it's not politically expedient, there are no brownie points for a conviction. That cannot be justice surely?

It's not about getting the verdict they want, it's just that there is new and compelling evidence that hadn't come to light before - evidence is completely unbiased. Don't get me wrong, I'm sure they wanted a conviction in this case more than anything, but the evidence speaks for itself.

If someone was found not guilty of murder and then the murder weapon turned up with their prints and the victim's blood all over it, should this person be allowed to avoid a retrial?

Before, there was no compelling evidence to convict them, now there is enough to at least warrant the retrial. It reminds me of that old quote - "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do sir?"

 

[Siouxsie]

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

I think you may have misunderstood what I meant

 

[RHYDAL]

Whilst I support the idea that every effort possible should be made to bring criminals to justice, I have one reservation in this sort of case.
That is, the way the evidence was handled i.e. the jacket. These days, because DNA evidence is known to be a crucial factor in cases of this nature, rigorous safeguards are put in place to prevent contamination of said evidence.

I'm not convinced this was the case back in 1993. In order for a fair trial, surely the same standards of evidence integrity must have to have been in place. Were they?

 

[Real Sharapova]

Whilst I support the idea that every effort possible should be made to bring criminals to justice, I have one reservation in this sort of case.
That is, the way the evidence was handled i.e. the jacket. These days, because DNA evidence is known to be a crucial factor in cases of this nature, rigorous safeguards are put in place to prevent contamination of said evidence.

I'm not convinced this was the case back in 1993. In order for a fair trial, surely the same standards of evidence integrity must have to have been in place. Were they?

Questions were raised by the defence in this case very forcefully in relation to possible contamination of forensic evidence. No doubt those questions were discussed by the jury before arriving at the guilty verdicts. Bearing in mind that the jury had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty to arrive at guilty verdicts, the fact that the jury were unanimous in their verdicts indicates that the evidence as a whole left no doubt as to their guilt.

 

[OldGit]

Questions were raised by the defence in this case very forcefully in relation to possible contamination of forensic evidence. No doubt those questions were discussed by the jury before arriving at the guilty verdicts. Bearing in mind that the jury had to be sure beyond reasonable doubt that they were guilty to arrive at guilty verdicts, the fact that the jury were unanimous in their verdicts indicates that the evidence as a whole left no doubt as to their guilt.

The prosecution also had expert testimony to explain the number of unlikely events that would have to have occurred for the defence hypothesis to be valid and the minuscule probability of those all coinciding. It seems most unlikely that this case would have gone ahead if there was any real possibility of such a defence working.

 

[Brauny Blue]

I appreciate the judge was guided by the laws for juvenile convictions, but if the accused were 1 or 2 yrs older then i would have expected a minimum of 25-30 years for the crime.
The law is the law and all that, but i cant help but feel that these 'men' will probaly be out on the streets by the time they are barely 50 years old. They will be able to rejoin society and probaly live decent a decent life under a new identity. That in itself seems rough on the victims family imo.

 

[Matt_B]

I appreciate the judge was guided by the laws for juvenile convictions, but if the accused were 1 or 2 yrs older then i would have expected a minimum of 25-30 years for the crime.
The law is the law and all that, but i cant help but feel that these 'men' will probaly be out on the streets by the time they are barely 50 years old. They will be able to rejoin society and probaly live decent a decent life under a new identity. That in itself seems rough on the victims family imo.

The fact that their sentences are "at least" suggests to me that there is intention to keep them in longer.

 

[Real Sharapova]

The fact that their sentences are "at least" suggests to me that there is intention to keep them in longer.

I agree, when their minimum sentances are up they will take into account ( among many other things ) other offences, of which they both have, as an indication of possible reoffending. I also see the Attorney General ( after application from a member of the public ) is considering whether to go to the Court of Appeal to increase the minimum terms.