Quizzes & Puzzles13 mins ago
Pc Harpers Death Verdict
manslaughter...and they laugh and one says i don't give a ***, what s with the law today
they should get life or the end of a rope, latter preferred.
https:/ /www.da ilymail .co.uk/ news/ar ticle-8 556433/ Teenage -driver -PC-And rew-Har per-cas e-not-g uilty-m urder.h tml
they should get life or the end of a rope, latter preferred.
https:/
Answers
any remorse being shown now is likely to be down to self interest rather that sincere regret
12:43 Fri 24th Jul 2020
There were too many people hung in this country who were later proved innocent for any right-thinking person to demand the return of capital punishment.
‘Your’ way, certain Irishmen who didn’t bomb Birmingham or Guildford would have been killed, innocent though they were.
In this case, 50 years might fit the bill, though.
‘Your’ way, certain Irishmen who didn’t bomb Birmingham or Guildford would have been killed, innocent though they were.
In this case, 50 years might fit the bill, though.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
As always, when a emotive situation is reported, a lot of people get seriously upset, and post with their emotions at top level, which is absolutely understandable.
As I have pointed out many many times, the law has to act dispassionately. It has to work on facts, and evidence, and the judge and jury have to decide based on the evidence before them, and not their emotional reactions to what has happened.
So yes, this is justice, in the true sense of the word, because the legal process has been actioned, and ruled accordingly.
It's not emotional justice, or human nature justice, of course it's not, anyone would want to see these young men out of society for a very long time.
But that is not how our system works, and the same set of rules that allow the innocent to walk free have to have equal sway when it judges that these individuals are not guilty of murder.
We don't have to like the verdict, or the rules that make it what it is, but we do have to accept the verdict, because it's the law that governs us.
As I have pointed out many many times, the law has to act dispassionately. It has to work on facts, and evidence, and the judge and jury have to decide based on the evidence before them, and not their emotional reactions to what has happened.
So yes, this is justice, in the true sense of the word, because the legal process has been actioned, and ruled accordingly.
It's not emotional justice, or human nature justice, of course it's not, anyone would want to see these young men out of society for a very long time.
But that is not how our system works, and the same set of rules that allow the innocent to walk free have to have equal sway when it judges that these individuals are not guilty of murder.
We don't have to like the verdict, or the rules that make it what it is, but we do have to accept the verdict, because it's the law that governs us.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Andy that's a very level headed view and I've seen you post on other cases similarly and understand why you take that view - however in this case it's not absolutely crystal that objective justice has been carried out. We already know the jury had to be protected owing to some alleged threats to them from the traveller community (plus one juror had already been removed because she appeared to know and support them). How do we know the jury weren't too scared to commit to their true feelings? A jury is made up of everyday folk like us - I'd be the first to admit if I was picked to hear that case, under the circumstances, I'd be too scared probably to take the hard line.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
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.