Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
stephen lawrence murderers..
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16840950
These two murderers should quietly serve their full sentence now,and reflect on their crime,and the appalling length of time it took Justice to prevail,and enabled them to"cock a snook"at the Law of our Land...
..or would you give them an earlier Parole hearing,if they provided incontrovertible proof,as to the other killers?.. ..The possibility would seem remote,as they have been shown to be Liars,on a number of issues.So,I suppose,what I"m asking is...Is it "Case Closed"?
These two murderers should quietly serve their full sentence now,and reflect on their crime,and the appalling length of time it took Justice to prevail,and enabled them to"cock a snook"at the Law of our Land...
..or would you give them an earlier Parole hearing,if they provided incontrovertible proof,as to the other killers?.. ..The possibility would seem remote,as they have been shown to be Liars,on a number of issues.So,I suppose,what I"m asking is...Is it "Case Closed"?
Answers
1 to 10 of 10
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Zhukov. 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.
Depends how it is done.The best incentive is that they will come to reflect, over the years, that they are inside and their mates are enjoying life as free men. That may prompt them to name the others, the more so if one of the mates struck the fatal blows and they themselves were only 'bystanders', ( as they should have put it in their defence!), although convicted as principals in a joint enterprise. In that event, no promise of early parole if they name the others is necessary or desirable; such an understanding would undermine their credibility in giving evidence. Let them name the others first, unprompted.
i think if they were to have considered a 'deal' on turning the otherrs in then this would have happened by now. the fact they haven't taken that chance to date should deny them any right in the future to any such leniency.
if they did at some point in the future, then i would hope that would be further sentenced for perverting the course of justice and then for detained even longer.
if they did at some point in the future, then i would hope that would be further sentenced for perverting the course of justice and then for detained even longer.
It is far from over as the convictions were secured using the controversial principle of Joint Enterprise. Regardless of the politics and media surrounding this case, the forensic evidence ONLY places them allegedly at the scene when Stephen Lawrence's bodily fluids may have contaminated their clothing. It does not place a knife in either of their hands no does it prove either inflicted a life-threatening wound. Whether they are/were violent, racist criminals should not make any difference to the rules of fairness and justice, and populist convictions do not make good law. JENGbA (please google it) is campaigning for reform of Joint Enterprise regardless of who has been convicted. Correcting a miscarriage of justice should never be a "beauty contest" and the Law of England should not be sacrificed to get a popular result. Blackstone's Formulation is a cornerstone of the English legal system and Joint Enterprise erodes this at everyone's peril - "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"
rosemarie - I accept your argument,however,in the murder of Stephen Lawrence,prior threats were issued.There are instances,in the following minute or so,for members of the attacking group to try to make the others see reason,to placate,calm,walk away.None of this happened!
What happened was a savage attack on a young lad,who sadly could not keep up with his fleeing friend.A group acted as one,and commited brutal murder!
What happened was a savage attack on a young lad,who sadly could not keep up with his fleeing friend.A group acted as one,and commited brutal murder!
Joint enterprise is a bit difficult to doubt or deny if your defence is that you were never there at all; your counsel can't argue " He was not there but if, which is not admitted, he was there, he wasn't acting in a joint enterprise to murder or inflict gbh " ! Plainly several people were engaged in a joint enterprise and talking now about whether the concept is difficult for juries is irrelevant. The question never arose, and nor could it.
(The best defence is one where you admit everything you possibly can. Here one or both could have run 'Yes I was there and but I had no idea that anyone would be seriously hurt or killed. That was never anything I was a party to". Then joint enterprise is runnable and difficult sometimes for juries)
(The best defence is one where you admit everything you possibly can. Here one or both could have run 'Yes I was there and but I had no idea that anyone would be seriously hurt or killed. That was never anything I was a party to". Then joint enterprise is runnable and difficult sometimes for juries)
From memory, these two have been given life sentences with respective tariffs. That means at a particular point in the tariff, and not till then, they'll be eligible to apply for a parole hearing.
A determining factor in whether they get a hearing is that they have shown guilt and remorse for their crime, *not* whether they're prepared to shop their mates.
So, agree with Ankou.
A determining factor in whether they get a hearing is that they have shown guilt and remorse for their crime, *not* whether they're prepared to shop their mates.
So, agree with Ankou.
1 to 10 of 10
