Right of reply in murder trials.
Discussion
This practice has been around for years in the States.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4202618.stm
They are now thinking of trying it in the UK.
Personally, I think it is terrible and is a form of vigilantism. Is it right for the families to plead for harsher sentences? I think that justice should be equal for everyone and this would undermine the equality of a trial by the families with the best lawyers getting harsher sentences.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4202618.stm
They are now thinking of trying it in the UK.
Personally, I think it is terrible and is a form of vigilantism. Is it right for the families to plead for harsher sentences? I think that justice should be equal for everyone and this would undermine the equality of a trial by the families with the best lawyers getting harsher sentences.
tycho said:
This practice has been around for years in the States.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4202618.stm
They are now thinking of trying it in the UK.
Personally, I think it is terrible and is a form of vigilantism. Is it right for the families to plead for harsher sentences? I think that justice should be equal for everyone and this would undermine the equality of a trial by the families with the best lawyers getting harsher sentences.
The families of the victims should be allowed to plead for harsher sentences, because sentences in the main are a complete effing joke. People are getting TWO YEARS for killing people at the wheel of a car, FIVE YEARS for manslaughter, and as little at TEN YEARS for murder. In most cases, the sentences will be commuted by up to 1/3.
If there was a proper sentencing system then the bereaved relatives could maybe put the whole thing behind them rather than having to prepare a speech to a Judge/Jury on why a murderer should get a tougher sentence.
It's a f^%&ing disgrace that bereaved relatives should feel the need to do this in the first place. But, I guess that a harsh sentence would impinge on some scumbag's 'Human Rights'.
2p
No idea what it was. planetdave said:
Nicely cathartic to vent your spleen. But if the court is impartial what good does it do? And if it isn't impartial then?????????????????????
Crap, populist, car crash bloody justice.
What's wrong with shouting from the court steps in the traditional way?
There are two sides to every argument in court. The first, by the defence solicitor, is how Mr Scumbag is incredibly sorry for his evil deeds, it's not his fault, he comes from a broken home, blah blah blah.
The prosecution simply has to prove guilt, they are not even invited to explain the devastation a family might feel from the loss of a Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, etc.
Perhaps if a Judge and Jury were exposed to the sense of grief a person feels from the loss of a loved one they might feel entitled to hand out a proper punishment? Is that just common sense or am I still venting my spleen???
GarrettMacD said:
Nicely cathartic to vent your spleen. But if the court is impartial what good does it do? And if it isn't impartial then?????????????????????
Crap, populist, car crash bloody justice.
What's wrong with shouting from the court steps in the traditional way?
There are two sides to every argument in court. The first, by the defence solicitor, is how Mr Scumbag is incredibly sorry for his evil deeds, it's not his fault, he comes from a broken home, blah blah blah.
The prosecution simply has to prove guilt, they are not even invited to explain the devastation a family might feel from the loss of a Father, Mother, Son, Daughter, etc.
Perhaps if a Judge and Jury were exposed to the sense of grief a person feels from the loss of a loved one they might feel entitled to hand out a proper punishment? Is that just common sense or am I still venting my spleen???
No it's not common sense at all, nice how you've already found the defendant guilty and reduced the role of the defence solicitor to one purely of mitigation.
God forbid you're ever on a jury.
Leave the judging to the judges.
We do not need ignorant, emotional and biased people influencing the justice system. The rule of law should be applied fairly and evenly as possible.
Its stupid things like '3 strokes and you're out' and 'minimum tariff' that damage justice in this country. You can't just place a price on a crime without considering all the circumstances.
We do not need ignorant, emotional and biased people influencing the justice system. The rule of law should be applied fairly and evenly as possible.
Its stupid things like '3 strokes and you're out' and 'minimum tariff' that damage justice in this country. You can't just place a price on a crime without considering all the circumstances.
satch said:
it's a difficult one and easy to see both sides. I happen to disagree with letting reltives make statements in person.
I agree. People imagine that by letting relatives make statements, they are redressing the balance. But I know that after 20 years in lobbying professions, I could make a better case (in that position, God forbid) than most. How fair is that? Better that we protect our judicial system and allow Judges to send people down for an appropriate time, not affected by political correctness or the views of the Press. All IMO of course.
But btw, if anyone hurts my family, I'll kill them, and happily go down for life for it
Just in case anyone thought I was a liberal of any description. 
sparkythecat said:
There should be no need for this sort of thing. The mandatory sentence for murder in this country is life imprisonment. That's exactly what it should mean.
Not really. If I 'murdered' a close family member who was in intolerable pain, and the state would not allow assisted suicide, I don't think its fair that the state would then imprison me for life, for effectively ending the suffering of a loved one, with their consent.
Its the same for abused spouses. Murder shouldn't simply = life.
Hilts said:
God forbid you're ever on a jury.
Depends what angle you look at it from. The family of the bereaved would undoubtedly be very glad that I'm on the jury, but probably not Mr/Ms Guilty!
Either way, if it ever happened my condolences would lean towards the bereaved family, and not the disadvantaged criminal. Far too many leftie, human rights gobshites around for my liking.
satch said:
Hilts said:
God forbid you're ever on a jury.
Depends what angle you look at it from. The family of the bereaved would undoubtedly be very glad that I'm on the jury, but probably not Mr/Ms Guilty!
Either way, if it ever happened my condolences would lean towards the bereaved family, and not the disadvantaged criminal. Far too many leftie, human rights gobshites around for my liking.
let's hope you're never in the dock then either eh?
Nah, I'm, too busy reading the Daily Mail articles on immigrants, stealth taxes, Irag, Al Qaeda, etc.My time is mostly taken with 'letters to the editor'.
Jesus, it's all downhill from here...
sparkythecat said:
There should be no need for this sort of thing. The mandatory sentence for murder in this country is life imprisonment. That's exactly what it should mean.
i totally agree with you.
this idea (although i think it is a good one) is about putting a sticking plaster on a much greater problem - which is the issue of people getting lenient sentences. life was meant to be life. The death sentence was repealed on the basis that life meant life. life now only means 15years.
no wonder victims (or the family of) feel that justice is not being done.
parrot of doom said:
There should be no need for this sort of thing. The mandatory sentence for murder in this country is life imprisonment. That's exactly what it should mean.
Not really. If I 'murdered' a close family member who was in intolerable pain, and the state would not allow assisted suicide, I don't think its fair that the state would then imprison me for life, for effectively ending the suffering of a loved one, with their consent.
Its the same for abused spouses. Murder shouldn't simply = life.
pod the offence for which you would be most likely to be convicted in those circumstances would not be murder but assisting suicide ( Suicide Act 1961)
That has a maximum sentence of 14years and that sentencing for that offence is quite rightly at the discretion of the judge.
The abused spouse nearly always has a choice. If one of those choices was guaranteed life imprisonment they would perhaps be more likely to make a different choice.
moleamol said:
No, let the courts decide the verdict, then the people who have been punished decide the sentence. 
No, I am not joking. The 'justice' system in this country is abysmal.
I personally think that if you are found guilty of murder, you get life. Not 10 years, not 25 years, you get out of prison in a box. This would negate the need for letting the relatives have a say.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff