Why Would Anyone Have A Leasehold?
Society & Culture2 mins ago
Why was the Stephen Lawrence murder any different from others? Discuss.
74 Answers
Why has this case created so much attention and will it continue to do so?
There is no question that this murder was a brutal needless murder, committed by one of a number of savage racist thugs.
There has been a conviction and two of the perpetrators are at last behind bars, but the police have stated that they will not close their file on this case until the others are also behind bars.
But one must ask, was this particular murder any more vicious than hundreds of others, which haven’t been given the same attention that this one has, why?
Even the hundreds of child murders or even mass murders have not been classed important enough as this one has to force a change in a law that has been part of English law for centuries, I refer of course to the double jeopardy law.
Because this law no longer exists due to this case, it means now that the state has the right to repeatedly send to trial a person until they get the conviction they seek, it also encourages police and prosecutors to act recklessly, attempting spurious or rushed prosecutions, reassured that there may be a second chance further down the line. In addition, a jury which knows of the case before it is sent for retrial.
This case has created mass media and in turn public hysteria, a change in law,
the need by the police to enter a person's residence and plant video and audio devices to record a person's activities, a situation where it seems the murder of a black person is deemed more serious than the murder of a white person, or the murder of a child or the mass murder of persons.
These are all serious concerns that I know others have voiced (perhaps not on AB,) but on radio phone-ins and on the street.
Can we now have a serious discussion on this, without the need for the usual insults and cries of racism, I am not asking for agreement with these concerns, but I wish for others to explain why this particular murder was any different than hundreds of others?
There is no question that this murder was a brutal needless murder, committed by one of a number of savage racist thugs.
There has been a conviction and two of the perpetrators are at last behind bars, but the police have stated that they will not close their file on this case until the others are also behind bars.
But one must ask, was this particular murder any more vicious than hundreds of others, which haven’t been given the same attention that this one has, why?
Even the hundreds of child murders or even mass murders have not been classed important enough as this one has to force a change in a law that has been part of English law for centuries, I refer of course to the double jeopardy law.
Because this law no longer exists due to this case, it means now that the state has the right to repeatedly send to trial a person until they get the conviction they seek, it also encourages police and prosecutors to act recklessly, attempting spurious or rushed prosecutions, reassured that there may be a second chance further down the line. In addition, a jury which knows of the case before it is sent for retrial.
This case has created mass media and in turn public hysteria, a change in law,
the need by the police to enter a person's residence and plant video and audio devices to record a person's activities, a situation where it seems the murder of a black person is deemed more serious than the murder of a white person, or the murder of a child or the mass murder of persons.
These are all serious concerns that I know others have voiced (perhaps not on AB,) but on radio phone-ins and on the street.
Can we now have a serious discussion on this, without the need for the usual insults and cries of racism, I am not asking for agreement with these concerns, but I wish for others to explain why this particular murder was any different than hundreds of others?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
"The killers of PC Keith Blakelock were never caught, which is why his name is so easy to remember. Same with the killer(s) of Yvonne Fletcher."
Or Joanna Yeates. I bring her name up a lot, I know. But that's because I sincerely hope that particularly despicable affair is never forgotten. Either way, I think we've come up with a fair few cases of white victims who caused a great deal of national interest (and the Yeates murder would easily have continued to do so if it had gone on longer). Personally, distasteful as it may seem, I think we can pretty safely assume Madeline McCann to be in this category too (even if she is still alive, she represents as much of a life tragically being lost). With regard to why the Lawrence case ended with reform - I think it's because it highlighted an institutional flaw. And it's pretty rare for governments to immediately respond to exposed flaws - it nearly always seems to take years. In this case, the necessary time has passed and the necessary pressure has been maintained for the whole time by SL's parents.
Also, AOG, I distinctly remember in this thread:
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1079576-2.html
that you seemed perfectly fine with basing your conclusions on your emotions when I challenged you on it.
Or Joanna Yeates. I bring her name up a lot, I know. But that's because I sincerely hope that particularly despicable affair is never forgotten. Either way, I think we've come up with a fair few cases of white victims who caused a great deal of national interest (and the Yeates murder would easily have continued to do so if it had gone on longer). Personally, distasteful as it may seem, I think we can pretty safely assume Madeline McCann to be in this category too (even if she is still alive, she represents as much of a life tragically being lost). With regard to why the Lawrence case ended with reform - I think it's because it highlighted an institutional flaw. And it's pretty rare for governments to immediately respond to exposed flaws - it nearly always seems to take years. In this case, the necessary time has passed and the necessary pressure has been maintained for the whole time by SL's parents.
Also, AOG, I distinctly remember in this thread:
http://www.theanswerb...uestion1079576-2.html
that you seemed perfectly fine with basing your conclusions on your emotions when I challenged you on it.
1.A brutal, savage,unprovoked, ultimately fatal attack on an innocent youth. Him and his friend singled out, targeted and cowardly attacked by a mob of criminally inclined, knife -wielding subhumans purely on the basis of the colour of their skin.
2.A completely inadequate initial response by the police, and initially insensitive handling of the family and the friend. This brought to a head the long held belief, especially within the black community, that the police were racist, a conclusion arrived at in the subsequent public inquiry.
3. A suspicion of corruption of some of the police in that area by the father of one of the participants.
4. The later released video surveillance of some of the gang, mouthing the most despicable, foul and repugnant racist hatred, all the while waving knives around.
5. The perception of the public, - given by those accused of the murder when swaggering into and out of various courts and inquiries - that the accused felt they were immune, above the law.
6. The efforts of the Lawrence family, who were diligent and motivated in keeping the inquiry alive.
7. The Daily Mail, in the one public campaign they have done that I think they should be proud of, labelling the 5 as murderers, and daring them to sue.
All of this coalesced to make it an iconic case. Much of the improved police practice can be attributed to reforms introduced as a consequence of the public inquiry.
Your comments re double jeopardy seem rather hysterical to me. Should new, significant and credible evidence arise as a consequence of advances in scientific methods, or simply because investigation has unearthed evidence previously unavailable, or because a witness finally comes forward - Then no one should be exempt from being tried because they have been tried for the same crime before.
2.A completely inadequate initial response by the police, and initially insensitive handling of the family and the friend. This brought to a head the long held belief, especially within the black community, that the police were racist, a conclusion arrived at in the subsequent public inquiry.
3. A suspicion of corruption of some of the police in that area by the father of one of the participants.
4. The later released video surveillance of some of the gang, mouthing the most despicable, foul and repugnant racist hatred, all the while waving knives around.
5. The perception of the public, - given by those accused of the murder when swaggering into and out of various courts and inquiries - that the accused felt they were immune, above the law.
6. The efforts of the Lawrence family, who were diligent and motivated in keeping the inquiry alive.
7. The Daily Mail, in the one public campaign they have done that I think they should be proud of, labelling the 5 as murderers, and daring them to sue.
All of this coalesced to make it an iconic case. Much of the improved police practice can be attributed to reforms introduced as a consequence of the public inquiry.
Your comments re double jeopardy seem rather hysterical to me. Should new, significant and credible evidence arise as a consequence of advances in scientific methods, or simply because investigation has unearthed evidence previously unavailable, or because a witness finally comes forward - Then no one should be exempt from being tried because they have been tried for the same crime before.
because with this murder, the police were racist - they did not believe Stephen Lawrence had been picked on, stabbed and murdered on the street for no other reason than the colour of his skin. The police's view of the situation was based purely on their racist attitudes, they did not act on what they saw and what they were told.
It was only the sheer determination of Doreen Lawrence that changed the law, and had these thugs brought to justice. Alto their sentences should have been much longer in my view.
A similar "high profile" case was the tragic and terrible murder of Sarah Payne, again the sheer determination of her mother brought about a change in the law which protected the anonymity of the paedophile creeps.
It was only the sheer determination of Doreen Lawrence that changed the law, and had these thugs brought to justice. Alto their sentences should have been much longer in my view.
A similar "high profile" case was the tragic and terrible murder of Sarah Payne, again the sheer determination of her mother brought about a change in the law which protected the anonymity of the paedophile creeps.
The “double jeopardy” law did not come into force until 1st April 2005. Since that time I believe there have been just eight cases returned to court under the new legislation with now five convictions (including Dobson and Norris). So its use is not widespread but this is mainly because it is currently limited to a small number of the most serious of offences and “new and compelling evidence” must be available. As with many issues, the danger is that “mission creep” will occur and the current very limited circumstances in which it is allowed to operate will gradually be expanded.
There is also little doubt that a jury is bound to be swayed knowing (as they must have done in the recent trial) that the DPP and the Court of Appeal accepts that much of the evidence they will hear is “new and compelling”. A fair trial must be jeopardised by such knowledge.
But the most worrying aspect of the law change is its retrospective operation. I cannot recall any legislation in the UK being made available retrospectively. Indeed much play has been made over the last few days that Dobson and Norris were sentenced under the law prevailing at the time of the offence. Quite right too. But the law prevailing in 1993 did not permit second prosecutions of people already acquitted of the same offence.
The Macpherson enquiry was asked to look into the police handling of the Lawrence murder. There is no doubt that it was handled appallingly in many respects (as are many other enquiries). But some of the seventy recommendations arising from the report were preposterous. More important, though, was that the enquiry considerably exceeded its brief. It was asked to look into police procedures, but, having found they were lacking, recommended a radical change in a fundamental principle of UK law. (Remember, by the time the report was published two suspects had already been tried and acquitted of the Lawrence murder).
I have little doubt that Dobson and Norris are guilty of an atrocious crime and have strong suspicions that others equally responsible regrettably remain at large. But the change to the double jeopardy law brought about by the Macpherson report and in particular its retrospective validity was introduced in response to a single problem. And that is usually not a good reason to drastically change legislation.
There is also little doubt that a jury is bound to be swayed knowing (as they must have done in the recent trial) that the DPP and the Court of Appeal accepts that much of the evidence they will hear is “new and compelling”. A fair trial must be jeopardised by such knowledge.
But the most worrying aspect of the law change is its retrospective operation. I cannot recall any legislation in the UK being made available retrospectively. Indeed much play has been made over the last few days that Dobson and Norris were sentenced under the law prevailing at the time of the offence. Quite right too. But the law prevailing in 1993 did not permit second prosecutions of people already acquitted of the same offence.
The Macpherson enquiry was asked to look into the police handling of the Lawrence murder. There is no doubt that it was handled appallingly in many respects (as are many other enquiries). But some of the seventy recommendations arising from the report were preposterous. More important, though, was that the enquiry considerably exceeded its brief. It was asked to look into police procedures, but, having found they were lacking, recommended a radical change in a fundamental principle of UK law. (Remember, by the time the report was published two suspects had already been tried and acquitted of the Lawrence murder).
I have little doubt that Dobson and Norris are guilty of an atrocious crime and have strong suspicions that others equally responsible regrettably remain at large. But the change to the double jeopardy law brought about by the Macpherson report and in particular its retrospective validity was introduced in response to a single problem. And that is usually not a good reason to drastically change legislation.
I actually think it caused (and still does cause to some degree) huge problems for many police officers (the vast majority of whom are not in the least bit "racist") and hampered them in the execution of their duties, particularly in areas with a high black population. The end result was that the police service offered to the public inevitably suffered.
As for the retrospective abolition of "double jeopardy" I agree that this week's news has seen a positive outcome as a result of that change. But I'm not sure the end justified the somewhat drastic means.
As for the retrospective abolition of "double jeopardy" I agree that this week's news has seen a positive outcome as a result of that change. But I'm not sure the end justified the somewhat drastic means.
New Judge
// But I'm not sure the end justified the somewhat drastic means. //
If you read the link earlier in this thread from the mother of the victim of the first man tried under the change to the Double Jeopardy rule, then i am sure that the end DOES justify the means.
In that cade, and in the Dobson / Norris case, scientific advances ca prove now, what coyld not be proved 20 years ago. If the end result is dangerous murderers are lick away for a long time, I fail to see what the problem is.
// But I'm not sure the end justified the somewhat drastic means. //
If you read the link earlier in this thread from the mother of the victim of the first man tried under the change to the Double Jeopardy rule, then i am sure that the end DOES justify the means.
In that cade, and in the Dobson / Norris case, scientific advances ca prove now, what coyld not be proved 20 years ago. If the end result is dangerous murderers are lick away for a long time, I fail to see what the problem is.
sp1814
/// By the way people...please don't let the Daily Mail's (rather excellent) campaign against these murderers fool you into thinking that it isn't a sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist newspaper. ///
/// You can be a racist without supporting the murder of black people!!! ///
No matter what is done, one cannot win with some people, they will always continue to provide an excuse to keep the 'racist' accusations active.
/// By the way people...please don't let the Daily Mail's (rather excellent) campaign against these murderers fool you into thinking that it isn't a sexist, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist newspaper. ///
/// You can be a racist without supporting the murder of black people!!! ///
No matter what is done, one cannot win with some people, they will always continue to provide an excuse to keep the 'racist' accusations active.
Yet another well thought out and intelligent answer from 'the judge'.
He along with myself can foresee future serious implications of this knee jerk reactionary change in the law.
It is most surprising that some others can also not see them.
Incidentally it was reported that due to 'one' person's request, a review of the sentences issued will take place.
'One Person' that is amazing considering the fact that 'Thousands' requested a referendum on whether Britain came out of the EC, and we all know their request was ignored.
He along with myself can foresee future serious implications of this knee jerk reactionary change in the law.
It is most surprising that some others can also not see them.
Incidentally it was reported that due to 'one' person's request, a review of the sentences issued will take place.
'One Person' that is amazing considering the fact that 'Thousands' requested a referendum on whether Britain came out of the EC, and we all know their request was ignored.
It is unlikely that the sentences will be increased - I understand that the judge applied the maximum sentences he could under the rules that meant the defendents were tried and convicted as the juveniles they were when initially charged.
No doubt that wilkl lead to howls of protest, but under a fair legal system, it is wrong to increase a sentence simply because the offender has grown older during the legal process.
No doubt that wilkl lead to howls of protest, but under a fair legal system, it is wrong to increase a sentence simply because the offender has grown older during the legal process.
Latest Posts
The Starmer Stasi At It Again......
News6 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
So Lets Shaft Our Farmers.....
News20 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.