T W A U ... The Chase...from...
Film, Media & TV0 min ago
Lee Rigby Murder Trial
Why is money being wasted on this trial and that poor mans family having to sit thru it all.... The 2 murderers have pleaded not guilty, but there is more than enough video and camera evidence showing them committing the murder and admitting to it! And who the hell is defending them in court!?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by knowabit. 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.
knowabit
What would be the alternative?
Who would decide on the sentence?
How do you convict those who have been found guilty of crime?
Yes, this one is a no-brainer, but even so - we should be wary of chucking out centuries of jurisprudence based on an emotional response to this particular case.
These two, if/when found guilty, should face the absolute maximum time possible for murder.
Also, whilst in jail they will be constantly looking over their shoulder in fear of attack.
That's no bad thing in my book. Because what they have done has far-reaching effects...more so than an 'ordinary' murder.
What would be the alternative?
Who would decide on the sentence?
How do you convict those who have been found guilty of crime?
Yes, this one is a no-brainer, but even so - we should be wary of chucking out centuries of jurisprudence based on an emotional response to this particular case.
These two, if/when found guilty, should face the absolute maximum time possible for murder.
Also, whilst in jail they will be constantly looking over their shoulder in fear of attack.
That's no bad thing in my book. Because what they have done has far-reaching effects...more so than an 'ordinary' murder.
Postdog
"Free them and let the public give out justice...they can't complain as it is THEIR idea of justice."
But then of course, whoever dispenses the justice you talk about would have to be arrested, tied and if convicted possible jailed, depending on what 'justice' was meted out.
The rule of law should always outweigh the rule of the mob.
"Free them and let the public give out justice...they can't complain as it is THEIR idea of justice."
But then of course, whoever dispenses the justice you talk about would have to be arrested, tied and if convicted possible jailed, depending on what 'justice' was meted out.
The rule of law should always outweigh the rule of the mob.
Yes, we can talk about the trial and the evidence presented, and give our opinion on both. We cannot adduce hearsay or evidence of our own, lest a juror sees it.
Any counsel instructed would defend these men. That is in the job description; it is what counsel do. Their task is to get a better result for any client than the client would get on his own. So much were our ancestors struck by the unfairness of a man being prosecuted by skilled counsel that, although he had a skilled counsel of his own, he was not allowed to give sworn evidence himself until 1898; thus he was not exposed to cross-examination, but made a 'statement from the dock instead. This practice of 'dock statement' persisted until well into the 1970s. It was usually drafted by his counsel, putting into more careful and persuasive words what the client wanted to say.
Here, counsel could be running diminished responsibility, or, perhaps, that the defendants were insane at the time. Or it may simply be an exercise in seeing how the evidence comes out in court, and seeing what mitigation you can get out of it. Anyway, you can't force any client to plead guilty; the law allows him to put the prosecution to proof.. You'd be surprised, perhaps, but every barrister will have had at least one case which looked overwhelming on paper but which proved the opposite in court ; I have seen a case which the judge stopped for no case to answer, and another in which he told the jury that they could acquit without hearing prosecuting or defence speeches or any summing up (they did, of course), both of which were overwhelming for the prosecution, on paper.
Any counsel instructed would defend these men. That is in the job description; it is what counsel do. Their task is to get a better result for any client than the client would get on his own. So much were our ancestors struck by the unfairness of a man being prosecuted by skilled counsel that, although he had a skilled counsel of his own, he was not allowed to give sworn evidence himself until 1898; thus he was not exposed to cross-examination, but made a 'statement from the dock instead. This practice of 'dock statement' persisted until well into the 1970s. It was usually drafted by his counsel, putting into more careful and persuasive words what the client wanted to say.
Here, counsel could be running diminished responsibility, or, perhaps, that the defendants were insane at the time. Or it may simply be an exercise in seeing how the evidence comes out in court, and seeing what mitigation you can get out of it. Anyway, you can't force any client to plead guilty; the law allows him to put the prosecution to proof.. You'd be surprised, perhaps, but every barrister will have had at least one case which looked overwhelming on paper but which proved the opposite in court ; I have seen a case which the judge stopped for no case to answer, and another in which he told the jury that they could acquit without hearing prosecuting or defence speeches or any summing up (they did, of course), both of which were overwhelming for the prosecution, on paper.
Another stupid comment Zeuhl.Of course I don't feel better. I feel disgusted that monsters like that should kill our soldier. It is not clever to make sarcastic comments re a tragedy like this - but that seems to be your forte. My comments were taken from the media; apart from my own word - scum. And that is precisely what they are. But do you think differently sir?
