Discussion
andygo said:
Its a missing kiddies life that's at stake here. I'm all for human rights, but has this bloke got the right to silence when a kiddies life is maybe at stake - if its not to late already? BTW, I didn't mention torture.
I understand its the start of a very slippery slope, but it was only a question, not my statement of principle and what i believe should happen. Calm down please at the back.
If it was your daughter, just how would you feel?
What happens if the "perp" is talking, and all he's saying is "I don't know where she is" and "I'm innocent" for the very good reason that he has no idea where the little girl is because he had nothing to do with the disapearence? Should torture be justified "coz we got dis bloke rite an he looks a bit ov a nutta?" Innocent until PROVEN guilty is supposed to be a cornerstone of our justice system (don't get me started on that) so what you suggest is torturing innocent people until they confess, that has been tried before and doesn't really work out well.I understand its the start of a very slippery slope, but it was only a question, not my statement of principle and what i believe should happen. Calm down please at the back.
If it was your daughter, just how would you feel?
MKnight702 said:
What happens if the "perp" is talking, and all he's saying is "I don't know where she is" and "I'm innocent" for the very good reason that he has no idea where the little girl is because he had nothing to do with the disapearence? Should torture be justified "coz we got dis bloke rite an he looks a bit ov a nutta?" Innocent until PROVEN guilty is supposed to be a cornerstone of our justice system (don't get me started on that) so what you suggest is torturing innocent people until they confess, that has been tried before and doesn't really work out well.
Would using a drug to make sure he is telling the truth be the same as torture?If one were available, which was known not to have any side effect that lasted longer than say a few days, and I were in custody for something I hadn't done, I may just say well if you don't believe me load me up with XYZ if you want.
But if the law says they cannot where does that leave things in that instance? I for one cannot imagine being locked in a cell with nothing to do for even 24 hours. (In fact I would go so far as to say if I thought it may get me out I may be tempted to say anything anyone wanted me to).
Actus Reus said:
Breadvan72 said:
I see that the McCanning of the family has started already.
It started, let's face it, the moment she disappeared and many people, dare I say it, MOST people would have watched the press conference with that in mind.Breadvan72 said:
I didn't. I have this boring and old fashioned attachment to forming opinions based on evidence.
Could you not view the press conference as a form of circumstantial evidence? Or are you really so professional as to not ever form an opinion in the absence of anything other than empirical proof?The Police, afterall, will have made a judgment on what they saw.
EFA
Breadvan72 said:
People always love to wag the finger. If the child is never found, there will always be some who will believe that the parents murdered her, as with the McCanns. I hope first that the child is found, and secondly that whomever took her, family member or otherwise, is caught.
I'll second that.As an aside - was the announcement of the enormous balls-up on the Railways only made safe in the knowledge that it would likely be buried, to an extent, by Jimmy Savile and this? One family's tragedy is a DoT official's get out of jail card...
Melman Giraffe said:
Actus Reus said:
Breadvan72 said:
I see that the McCanning of the family has started already.
It started, let's face it, the moment she disappeared and many people, dare I say it, MOST people would have watched the press conference with that in mind.
MKnight702 said:
What happens if the "perp" is talking, and all he's saying is "I don't know where she is" and "I'm innocent" for the very good reason that he has no idea where the little girl is because he had nothing to do with the disapearence? Should torture be justified "coz we got dis bloke rite an he looks a bit ov a nutta?" Innocent until PROVEN guilty is supposed to be a cornerstone of our justice system (don't get me started on that) so what you suggest is torturing innocent people until they confess, that has been tried before and doesn't really work out well.
In my original post I indicated that the Police were searching several areas specified by the suspect. Now if he was innocent, why would he be suggesting areas to search? I haven't suggested torture at all. As a matter of interest, someone mentioned that it takes a skilled person to administer the drugs and get benefit from them. As a matter of interest, where do they gain that experience?
Anyway, its straying from my original simplistic question - I didn't want to raise a furore of debate regarding civil liberties, something that has clearly been denied the kiddie in question.
Edited by andygo on Thursday 4th October 18:48
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff