Forums

Posted: 13-11-2002 17:38 Post subject: Yet another miscarriage of justice

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/2456951.stm

Another day.... another man who has 25 years inside for a crime he probably did not do...

Last time it was Stephen Downing, now it's Robert Brown.

I find it worrying that when a defendant denies a crime and says that the police used wrongfull means to extract the confession then a jury always seems to believe the police, even a dimwitt should realise this is unsafe.

And why is it that to get a job in a burger bar you have to do an aptitude test, but to be a juror, the most responsible job a normal person will ever do, you can be any level or moron? the only qualification is that you have to be too dumb to get out of jury service...

Very worrying..........

Posted: 13-11-2002 18:53 Post subject:

I was supposed to be doing jury service today, but the trial didn't go ahead. Must've been a change of plea or something. Anyway, I got up at 0800 and went all the way in to the Sheriff Court in the rain for nothing. Hmph.

Posted: 13-11-2002 19:24 Post subject: Change the law

If Robert Brown had admitted his guilt, he would of course have been let out a decade ago - time to change the law on this perhaps, such that you don't have to admit guilt to be eligible for parole. It seems that a lot of innocent people have served a large number of years in jail cos of this. And society won't lose out, because if they were guilty in the first place, they'd have been let out anyway (does that make sense?). After all, it would take a very determined guilty person to carry on saying they were innocent and give up the chance of immediate freedom, for the possible chance of being cleared/compensated later. That's it.

Posted: 13-11-2002 22:43 Post subject:

And of course, 25 years wrongful imprisonment will gain him quite a few bob in compensation (although never enough for what he's lost).

Whose pocket is that going to come out of? The rozzers who set him up? No, Joe Public, as per usual.

Posted: 14-11-2002 14:16 Post subject:

The major reasons criminals want to preserve their right to jury trials is that they are far more likely to be let off if they get one.

At least we didn't execute him.

Posted: 14-11-2002 15:04 Post subject:

"At least we didn't execute him."

So that's all right then!

The case in question appears to have arisen from the actions or
influence of a corrupt policeman. If conviction rates are to be an
index of justice then we should all be campaigning for more corrupt
policemen. roll eyes (sarcastic)

Posted: 14-11-2002 15:10 Post subject: Re: Change the law

Posted: 14-11-2002 16:08 Post subject:

So Robert Brown didn't do it, and has spent 25 years rotting behind bars for a crime he didn't commit?

Yeah right, what's happened is that the original, trial and sentencing has been considered unsafe and owing to this he's been let out.

In the late seventies a couple of rozzers got out-of-hand with the old interrogation techniques and ended up eliciting a confession that is now to be considered unsound.

It didn't mean he didn't do it, indeed it reminds me of the "Birmingham Six". If memory serves it was Lord Justice Lawton that said of those miscreants he "had never been more sure" their original conviction was the right decision.

Sometimes the wrong people get let out for the right reasons:(

Posted: 14-11-2002 16:21 Post subject:

I can't remember who said it but it was along the lines of "Better 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be imprisoned"

Posted: 14-11-2002 16:23 Post subject:

But in the eyes of the Law, he didn't do it - he is thus innocent, whatever your opinion.

Posted: 14-11-2002 17:51 Post subject:

Ah, but Jerry, I think there is a meaningful distinction - which is increasingly lost as we become ever-more legalistic in our thinking - between being innocent / not guilty in the eyes of the law, and being innocent / not guilty in a more basic, if sometimes more difficult to discern, MORAL or "real" sense. In the eyes of the law, for example, OJ Simpson is not guilty of murder... Wink

I have no opinion on the guilt or innocence of the individual whose case prompted the start of this thread, but if his conviction was tossed because of an improperly obtained confession, I think the best that can be said is that he is now legally innocent. That is important, no question! BUT... that is NOT the same thing as saying that the wrong man sat in prison all those years. The press often plays a bit fast and loose in these cases, it seems to me... and does a disservice to us all.

Shadow

Posted: 14-11-2002 20:17 Post subject:

Posted: 15-11-2002 13:27 Post subject:

Shadow - it doesn't matter one jot if you or I think any person in this sort of case is guilty or not. As long as the Law says he's innocent, he is. People's presumptions based on morality doesn't matter either. And alot of the time with cases like this the accused is actually innocent in more general terms, the real criminals being the police who stitched the whole thing up in the first place.

Posted: 15-11-2002 19:16 Post subject:

There's actually a good deal of evidence to really question Robert Brown's guilt very seriously. I wouldn't fancy serving a sentence based on a confession beaten out of me by someone who… later served time for police corruption. And I think that you'll find very few people who have ever read anything about the Birmingham Six could still believe they're guilty. The IRA siad they were innocent, though that of course doesn't mean they are; Chris Mullin demonstrated I believe that they were innocent; confessions were beaten out of them (that should have gone out with the inquisistion); the forensic evidence was poor beyond belief. With a bit of digging I'm sure I could find more, but it's not easy to get let out of British jails by the appeal court. It's not something they do on a whim or even when therer is a good deal of pressure. There have been some staggeringly awful miscarriages of justice perpetrated by the British courts - and then the prisoners are let out to the widespread cries of 'well, they probably did it anywat'. No wonder the Birmingham Six are angry. I'd be livid beyond belief…

Posted: 15-11-2002 20:15 Post subject:

Just had a case in town yesterday where a man was exonorated in a rape case after seventeen years. DNA proved conclusively that he didn't do it. But DNA showed he IS guilty for a double murder which he's still in prison for.

Police know the identity of the real rapist now through DNA evidence obtained in other rapes, but the rapist remains free because the statute of limitations has expired.

Snafu, as usual.