Never felt so angry at an article...
Discussion
I simply cannot fathom how a person could even think of doing something like this.
It saddens me that there are people like this. I recently became a father and the mere thought of my son being in pain is a horrific thought.
I don't think I've ever felt as angry and upset as when he was only a few hours old he had to have an injection but the nurse couldn't find a vein. It took her two failed attempts before a doctor took over and got it right. And they were ultimately trying to help him.
This woman and her boyfriend, well, one of them actually committed this act and both of them waited up to 11 hours, ELEVEN f
kING HOURS, to do something about it. That in itself should be enough to charge them with an offence, surely?
The pictures of the little boy in hospital are heartbreaking. And the pictures of mum / bf holding him in hospital, just sickening.
Poor little kid.
It saddens me that there are people like this. I recently became a father and the mere thought of my son being in pain is a horrific thought.
I don't think I've ever felt as angry and upset as when he was only a few hours old he had to have an injection but the nurse couldn't find a vein. It took her two failed attempts before a doctor took over and got it right. And they were ultimately trying to help him.
This woman and her boyfriend, well, one of them actually committed this act and both of them waited up to 11 hours, ELEVEN f
kING HOURS, to do something about it. That in itself should be enough to charge them with an offence, surely?The pictures of the little boy in hospital are heartbreaking. And the pictures of mum / bf holding him in hospital, just sickening.
Poor little kid.
HarryW said:
Quite an interesting thread in some ways.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
And a third; those that can see the bigger picture. People are innocent until proven guilty and the state must provide evidence one committed a crime. All the suggestions I've seen on here would have far reaching implications for prosecuting innocent people when there's no evidence across the criminal justice system, from the most minor to the most serious offences. It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
In order to convict in these circumstances isn't a simple tweak to the rules, it's a major reworking to undo the safeguards that exist to protect the innocent in a fundamental way.
La Liga said:
HarryW said:
Quite an interesting thread in some ways.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
And a third; those that can see the bigger picture. People are innocent until proven guilty and the state must provide evidence one committed a crime. All the suggestions I've seen on here would have far reaching implications for prosecuting innocent people when there's no evidence across the criminal justice system, from the most minor to the most serious offences. It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
In order to convict in these circumstances isn't a simple tweak to the rules, it's a major reworking to undo the safeguards that exist to protect the innocent in a fundamental way.
No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
La Liga said:
HarryW said:
Quite an interesting thread in some ways.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
And a third; those that can see the bigger picture. People are innocent until proven guilty and the state must provide evidence one committed a crime. All the suggestions I've seen on here would have far reaching implications for prosecuting innocent people when there's no evidence across the criminal justice system, from the most minor to the most serious offences. It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
In order to convict in these circumstances isn't a simple tweak to the rules, it's a major reworking to undo the safeguards that exist to protect the innocent in a fundamental way.
HarryW said:
Quite an interesting thread in some ways.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter and as I said a few pages away, if only for the memory of this poor child. lessons needs to be not just learnt but adopted, so this kind of situation can be avoided in the future.
.
To clarify this, some people on this thread believe in the presumption of innocence and some seem to believe in the presumption of guilt.It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter and as I said a few pages away, if only for the memory of this poor child. lessons needs to be not just learnt but adopted, so this kind of situation can be avoided in the future.
.
The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
blindswelledrat said:
To clarify this, some people on this thread believe in the presumption of innocence and some seem to believe in the presumption of guilt.
The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
The ECHR disagrees with you.The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
Zyp said:
The pic of the poor little mite in hospital is heart wrenching.
Utter, utter bds.
Utter, utter b
ds.
God what an awful story. I have a 14 month old son and the thought of anything like that happening to him just fills me with dread. I really hope Sam didn't suffer too much. I'll sign the petition but sadly I don't have any confidence in it making a difference.
La Liga said:
HarryW said:
Quite an interesting thread in some ways.
It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
And a third; those that can see the bigger picture. People are innocent until proven guilty and the state must provide evidence one committed a crime. All the suggestions I've seen on here would have far reaching implications for prosecuting innocent people when there's no evidence across the criminal justice system, from the most minor to the most serious offences. It, to me, exposes two mindsets; those that cannot see beyond the rules as set out before them and those that see there must be something wrong with the rules and challenge them. I for one ascribe to the latter
In order to convict in these circumstances isn't a simple tweak to the rules, it's a major reworking to undo the safeguards that exist to protect the innocent in a fundamental way.
The other mindset just wants a knee-jerk reaction and possibly aren't able to think things through properly, imo.
Mrr T said:
blindswelledrat said:
To clarify this, some people on this thread believe in the presumption of innocence and some seem to believe in the presumption of guilt.
The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
The ECHR disagrees with you.The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
blindswelledrat said:
Mrr T said:
blindswelledrat said:
To clarify this, some people on this thread believe in the presumption of innocence and some seem to believe in the presumption of guilt.
The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
The ECHR disagrees with you.The only societies I know of that presume guilt are barbaric ones which is why however much I want someone to get prosecuted in this case, I think the law is good.
The thing I find ironic is that several of the posters on this thread who want the presumption of guilt are the ones who are so vocal on muslim threads about how prehistoric some of the Islamic laws are and how adhering to them renders the followers as savages.
I would draw your attention to the ECHR decision in O'Halloran and Francis V The United Kingdom.:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.a...
The decision shows the right to a fair trial is a condition right. In particular the right to silence and therefore the right to avoid self incrimination can be set aside in the best interests of society.
Mrr T said:
Oh yes it does.
I would draw your attention to the ECHR decision in O'Halloran and Francis V The United Kingdom.:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.a...
The decision shows the right to a fair trial is a condition right. In particular the right to silence and therefore the right to avoid self incrimination can be set aside in the best interests of society.
I'm not sure what you're relying on that case for. It was a motoring case which, as you pointed out, concerned self-incrimination, which doesn't seem to be at issue here.I would draw your attention to the ECHR decision in O'Halloran and Francis V The United Kingdom.:
http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/sites/eng/pages/search.a...
The decision shows the right to a fair trial is a condition right. In particular the right to silence and therefore the right to avoid self incrimination can be set aside in the best interests of society.
HarryW said:
Still only two imho, what you have stated is still pretty much the former. I give you did consider the latter but dismissed it as too difficult, as it might undo the safeguards.
No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
Must a "full review" of the law be conducted every time a crime is committed but the police don't get enough evidence to identify who did it? What change to the law do you suggest?No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
I think everyone can agree that its a absolute tragedy that this poor innocent child was murdered.
We can also agree that it was one of the 2 people in the house.
Although they cant prove who did it by witness statements. If they can work out how hard the child was hit, why cant they search the house to find out what actually made contact with the child head. Then why aren't they testing the 2 accused to find out who had the greater chance of actually doing the deed?
I know it could get all CSI and not be possible, but surely a small woman and a bloke who are probably different heights and certainly different strengths and weights would all help point out who might have done it.
I know these papers gloss over the detail but surely SOME investigation must have taken place? They surely didn't just go "did you do it" and leave it there?
We can also agree that it was one of the 2 people in the house.
Although they cant prove who did it by witness statements. If they can work out how hard the child was hit, why cant they search the house to find out what actually made contact with the child head. Then why aren't they testing the 2 accused to find out who had the greater chance of actually doing the deed?
I know it could get all CSI and not be possible, but surely a small woman and a bloke who are probably different heights and certainly different strengths and weights would all help point out who might have done it.
I know these papers gloss over the detail but surely SOME investigation must have taken place? They surely didn't just go "did you do it" and leave it there?
spats said:
I think everyone can agree that its a absolute tragedy that this poor innocent child was murdered.
We can also agree that it was one of the 2 people in the house.
Although they cant prove who did it by witness statements. If they can work out how hard the child was hit, why cant they search the house to find out what actually made contact with the child head. Then why aren't they testing the 2 accused to find out who had the greater chance of actually doing the deed?
I know it could get all CSI and not be possible, but surely a small woman and a bloke who are probably different heights and certainly different strengths and weights would all help point out who might have done it.
I know these papers gloss over the detail but surely SOME investigation must have taken place? They surely didn't just go "did you do it" and leave it there?
Do you think that the police haven't done all this already?We can also agree that it was one of the 2 people in the house.
Although they cant prove who did it by witness statements. If they can work out how hard the child was hit, why cant they search the house to find out what actually made contact with the child head. Then why aren't they testing the 2 accused to find out who had the greater chance of actually doing the deed?
I know it could get all CSI and not be possible, but surely a small woman and a bloke who are probably different heights and certainly different strengths and weights would all help point out who might have done it.
I know these papers gloss over the detail but surely SOME investigation must have taken place? They surely didn't just go "did you do it" and leave it there?
SamHH said:
HarryW said:
Still only two imho, what you have stated is still pretty much the former. I give you did consider the latter but dismissed it as too difficult, as it might undo the safeguards.
No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
Must a "full review" of the law be conducted every time a crime is committed but the police don't get enough evidence to identify who did it? What change to the law do you suggest?No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
To the first, no. I'll be polite and expand on why I say no; all laws should be subject to periodic review as would any process or procedure in a functioning organisation. Sometimes things happen that might mean you'd want to not actually wait for a periodic review. in this case a young child has been murdered and the only two suspects cannot be charged. So it would not be unreasonable that you would conduct a extraordinary review due to the serious nature of the crime. Would you conduct a extrodiary review for a minor misdemeanour or would you leave it for a routine review at a later date, I I think it not unreasonable you'd wait.
To the second, I don't know, that's what the review is for. The outcome of which could range from wholesale change, minor change or no change.
To say never mind, that's the law and it can't change so we won't bother looking is a little callous given the circumstances.
I hope that makes it clearer for you.
HarryW said:
Still only two imho, what you have stated is still pretty much the former. I give you did consider the latter but dismissed it as too difficult, as it might undo the safeguards.
No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
Not when you phrase it as "can't see beyond the rules", as if there's some sort of intellectual limitation to those in this category. It requires a greater ability to consider the implication upon the wider system when making changes that would support one specific case. No one is saying there shouldn't be safe guards, of course there should be. This case highlights there is a potential issue with the law as it stands and the minimum response should be to explore every avenue to close or further reduce the likelihood of a repeat case. If after a full review it is found that the law is robust and correct as it stands with no amendment or change required, fair do's. However until that review, as opposed to a cursory look, is concluded it is something that will continue to rile people who seek a natural desire and sense for 'justice' when 'injustice' is felt.
It's also not a case of mere safeguards, it's a fundamental change to our criminal justice system, not some minor "tweak" or amendment some on here seem to think it would be.
Mrr T said:
Its an easy change just look at s172 RTA 1988, which the ECHR has already agreed does not impinge your human rights.
You've quoted something which completely undoes your point. There are literally examples in the judgement of when article 6 has been breached by wider, direct incrimination - below the thresholds people are proposing here... It's the specificity and 'special nature' of the S.172 requirement that allows it to be compatible with article 6. ECHR said:
62. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including the special nature of the regulatory regime in issue and the limited nature of the information sought by a notice under section 172 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, the Court considers that the essence of the applicants’ right to remain silent and their privilege against self-incrimination has not been destroyed.
HarryW said:
Not sure if you are deliberately being obtuse or not, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt and answer your considered questions.
No, I wasn't.HarryW said:
To the first, no. I'll be polite and expand on why I say no; all laws should be subject to periodic review as would any process or procedure in a functioning organisation.
They are. Some of the law that is relevant in this case has been reviewed, and some changed, in recent years. These reviews have been done in the light of other instances where a crime has been committed and a prosecution has been impossible for lack of evidence.HarryW said:
Sometimes things happen that might mean you'd want to not actually wait for a periodic review. in this case a young child has been murdered and the only two suspects cannot be charged. So it would not be unreasonable that you would conduct a extraordinary review due to the serious nature of the crime. Would you conduct a extrodiary review for a minor misdemeanour or would you leave it for a routine review at a later date, I I think it not unreasonable you'd wait.
To the second, I don't know, that's what the review is for. The outcome of which could range from wholesale change, minor change or no change.
To say never mind, that's the law and it can't change so we won't bother looking is a little callous given the circumstances.
I hope that makes it clearer for you.
To be clear then, you want an extraordinary full review of the law every time a person (or only a person below a certain age?) is murdered, and there is insufficient evidence to prosecute? How often would that require the law to be fully reviewed? At least yearly, do you think? Would you repeat the same review every time? That seems like a lot of wasted effort, especially when even you can't even think of any changes you might want. To the second, I don't know, that's what the review is for. The outcome of which could range from wholesale change, minor change or no change.
To say never mind, that's the law and it can't change so we won't bother looking is a little callous given the circumstances.
I hope that makes it clearer for you.
Edited by SamHH on Tuesday 30th June 15:22
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff