Will You Be Shopping At Boots This...
News0 min ago
Hanging
A man is about to be freed from the nick after doing 27 years for a murder he didn't commit. Where are the Hang 'em High brigade now ?
Answers
1 to 20 of 20
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by brionon. 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.
I've always maintained any case should be proven 100% before sentencing. Recalling the case of Timothy Evans now who was hung despite his protests. It was only when Christy was aressted for the other murders that he confessed to the murder of Beryl Evans. 100% proof then hang em high which they dont anyway.
I'd make a comment if I knew the details, but it's all too easy to use sweeping statements like "freed.............for a murder he didn't commit".
Really? And where did this come from? Maybe we don't read the same newspapers or watch the same news bulletins, but I haven't a clue what you're on about.
Really? And where did this come from? Maybe we don't read the same newspapers or watch the same news bulletins, but I haven't a clue what you're on about.
brionon: Having now read the news article kindly provided by BillySugger(Thanks BS), my "ignorance" has most definitely NOT been enlightened!
If that's what you're basing your assertion on that this was "a murder he didn't commit", there's nothing in that article to support your claim.
What it actually amounts to, in a nutshell, is that his conviction COULD be shown to have been unsafe. That's a long way from saying that it was "a murder he didn't commit". How do YOU know he didn't commit it? Only HE himself knows for sure. The case has been referred to the Court of Appeal.
Should the authorities uphold the appeal, it will do so on the grounds that the conviction was unsafe given the fact that further evidence, not available 30 years ago i.e. DNA, has come to light which MAY cast doubt on the original investigation and subsequent trial all those years ago.
Even if this guy is eventually released, and I couldn't give a to55 either way, then he will NOT be released on the premise of having been found NOT GUILTY. There's a huge difference in Law in finding someone innocent or, as in this case, being released solely on the basis of his conviction being found to be unsafe - end of story.
If that's what you're basing your assertion on that this was "a murder he didn't commit", there's nothing in that article to support your claim.
What it actually amounts to, in a nutshell, is that his conviction COULD be shown to have been unsafe. That's a long way from saying that it was "a murder he didn't commit". How do YOU know he didn't commit it? Only HE himself knows for sure. The case has been referred to the Court of Appeal.
Should the authorities uphold the appeal, it will do so on the grounds that the conviction was unsafe given the fact that further evidence, not available 30 years ago i.e. DNA, has come to light which MAY cast doubt on the original investigation and subsequent trial all those years ago.
Even if this guy is eventually released, and I couldn't give a to55 either way, then he will NOT be released on the premise of having been found NOT GUILTY. There's a huge difference in Law in finding someone innocent or, as in this case, being released solely on the basis of his conviction being found to be unsafe - end of story.
It's funny that D.N.A evidence is being heralded as identifying a possible miscarriage of justice here, although I dare say the self same people doubt the veracity of D.N.A evidence in the Hanratty case.
Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.
Rov makes the best point about unsafe convictions from this era due to the unfortunate techniques used by the police during interviews. This is why they're burdened with paperwork nowadays.
I'm not uncomfortable with the death sentance, although I'd cheerfully abandon my advocacy for it, if life meant life.
And yes I saw on the tele the other day that life terms have increased since the 60s, but if memory serves this was due to government policy and what were called "merciful life sentances" (H.M.Ps) a change (I think) to the definitions of manslaughter brought an end to this policy, hence the statistic.
Having your cake and eating it springs to mind.
Rov makes the best point about unsafe convictions from this era due to the unfortunate techniques used by the police during interviews. This is why they're burdened with paperwork nowadays.
I'm not uncomfortable with the death sentance, although I'd cheerfully abandon my advocacy for it, if life meant life.
And yes I saw on the tele the other day that life terms have increased since the 60s, but if memory serves this was due to government policy and what were called "merciful life sentances" (H.M.Ps) a change (I think) to the definitions of manslaughter brought an end to this policy, hence the statistic.
No everton there is still what you call a life sentence.
(If I've explained this once I've exoplained it 1,000 times!)
Sigh.
A sentence is NOT the time you spend in prison
You can be sentence to community service for example.
The time you spend in prison is called the Tarriff
There is a Whole life tarrif here is a list of those sentenced to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_life_tariff #Prisoners_issued_with_life_tariffs
There is also the IPP, detention at her majesties pleasure and custody for life
I know you probably find this confusing but if you read here it explains it.
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsup port/prison_life/lifesentencedprisoners/
"Life should mean life" is a moronic phrase and only show that the user doesn't understand
(If I've explained this once I've exoplained it 1,000 times!)
Sigh.
A sentence is NOT the time you spend in prison
You can be sentence to community service for example.
The time you spend in prison is called the Tarriff
There is a Whole life tarrif here is a list of those sentenced to it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole_life_tariff #Prisoners_issued_with_life_tariffs
There is also the IPP, detention at her majesties pleasure and custody for life
I know you probably find this confusing but if you read here it explains it.
http://www.hmprisonservice.gov.uk/adviceandsup port/prison_life/lifesentencedprisoners/
"Life should mean life" is a moronic phrase and only show that the user doesn't understand
While I'm at it:
proof positive this case was covicted largely on a confession - many people then and now would have said that a confession was proof positive - obviously not. There are many reasons people confess to protect others, because they are under stress or perhaps in this case because they're not the full shilling.
DNA Having your cake and eating it this would be the case if the DNA evidence had proved he was elsewhere but the DNA evidence just showed it wasn't him.
If I gave you two books how much would you have to read before you knew they were different?
Only until you got to the first discrepancy
How long before you knew they were the same? You should read them all (in DNA they don't they rely on statistical techniques).
Then they tell juries there are billions to one against them being wrong
I wonder if the odds of a handling or administrative error is more or less than that?
They don't seem to account for that probability
proof positive this case was covicted largely on a confession - many people then and now would have said that a confession was proof positive - obviously not. There are many reasons people confess to protect others, because they are under stress or perhaps in this case because they're not the full shilling.
DNA Having your cake and eating it this would be the case if the DNA evidence had proved he was elsewhere but the DNA evidence just showed it wasn't him.
If I gave you two books how much would you have to read before you knew they were different?
Only until you got to the first discrepancy
How long before you knew they were the same? You should read them all (in DNA they don't they rely on statistical techniques).
Then they tell juries there are billions to one against them being wrong
I wonder if the odds of a handling or administrative error is more or less than that?
They don't seem to account for that probability
-- answer removed --
I am fully aware of the existence of the life tariff (sigh) but the idea that you can go to the shops and meet your son's murderer buying donuts is a rather galling thought, so to explain my "moronic" phrase a life sentance should mean the loss of liberty for life. When this applies the debate about the death penalty will largely disappear, if we live in a democracy and if we polled the citizens of this country and asked them would you support full life terms?
The answer I feel would be an unequivocal yes.
With reference to the D.N.A Paul Foot (when he was alive) campaigned tirelessly for Hanratty's innocence, even to the point of accusing the deceased man's wife of complicity in the crime, when the D.N.A results came back he said (and I quote) "well the science must be wrong" cake and eat it?
Now get off your high horse and drink your milk.
The answer I feel would be an unequivocal yes.
With reference to the D.N.A Paul Foot (when he was alive) campaigned tirelessly for Hanratty's innocence, even to the point of accusing the deceased man's wife of complicity in the crime, when the D.N.A results came back he said (and I quote) "well the science must be wrong" cake and eat it?
Now get off your high horse and drink your milk.
So we have to rename everything because you don't like it?
So what's a community sentence? a jail term in a community?
Do we have to rename the process of sentencing because it might be a fine?
A life sentence is never spent - it's for life - but it doesn't necessarilly mean a lifetime's incarceration it means what it says.
You're just trying to bend the word sentence to mean imprisonment.
Not sure I know what you mean pusspuss you just seem to be echoing my point
So what's a community sentence? a jail term in a community?
Do we have to rename the process of sentencing because it might be a fine?
A life sentence is never spent - it's for life - but it doesn't necessarilly mean a lifetime's incarceration it means what it says.
You're just trying to bend the word sentence to mean imprisonment.
Not sure I know what you mean pusspuss you just seem to be echoing my point
Jake if you wanna play with words then fine we'll play with words, murderers should serve the rest of their lives in prison.
I know people who've met violent deaths one of whom was murdered but the powers that be deemed it manslaughter, I've seen knife attacks and have had friends attacked with knives and one with a gun in rows over nothing, the idea that someone can stab you to death in the street and be out 3 or 4 years time is no deterrant and is most certainly not justice.
A few years ago i read the story of a man who murdered is 16 year old ex girlfriend, he'd manslaughtered his previous ex and had not long got out.
He was 24, if memory serves.
I know people who've met violent deaths one of whom was murdered but the powers that be deemed it manslaughter, I've seen knife attacks and have had friends attacked with knives and one with a gun in rows over nothing, the idea that someone can stab you to death in the street and be out 3 or 4 years time is no deterrant and is most certainly not justice.
A few years ago i read the story of a man who murdered is 16 year old ex girlfriend, he'd manslaughtered his previous ex and had not long got out.
He was 24, if memory serves.
1 to 20 of 20
