Fair trail, for a convicted killer?

Splottboy

The scrote known as JV previously, is apparently facing charges for *****************

So, the solicitor who represented the Baby P "protectors" stated on Radio 5 Live,
"They would change his name, age and other FACTS to hide JV's identity. The FACTS given would not affect the outcome, but only stop jurors knowing who he was..."
( His name,age address and other details would be changed, altered, adapted etc...)

That means, they ask 12 Jurors, to be Truthful, Honest and Righteous, swear on a Bible, but, all the time they are being LIED to? Is this RIGHT, FAIR, HONEST?

Why the hell is this animal getting better-than-fair-treatment?

In know if it was me, or my family,friends being put on trial, I'd want a FAIR trial, but, it seems as though the "Power That Be" are bending over backwards to assist him...

Fantastic Mr Fox

He's getting perfectly fair treatment.

They're only being 'lied to' about his name, which really doesn't matter, as he should be tried in the same way as everyone else who has committed the same crime/s.

Basically, we can give him a new identity when he gets out of jail at a cost of £150,000. Or permanently assign policemen to be with him/ at his house which would end up costing millions.

Also, what annoys me is the mum of the James Bulger claiming that she has a right to know what the crime is. Why? It has fuck all to do with her.

It was an insanely vicious crime, but they have done there time for that (your opinions on whether they did enough time aside) and any more crimes they commit have no relevance to her, unless she is the victim.

Anonymous

i blame the parents.

Northwind

Splottboy wrote:

That means, they ask 12 Jurors, to be Truthful, Honest and Righteous, swear on a Bible, but, all the time they are being LIED to? Is this RIGHT, FAIR, HONEST?

Is it honest? No. Is it essential? Yes. It's the only way he can possibly hope to get a fair trial, simple as that.

supersonic

TBH I am sick of hearing about it. Why it deserves a commons speech is beyond me.

ilovedirt

Do you really think he's going to get a fair trial if all the jurors know who he is? It may not consciously affect their decision, but it will affect it. He served his time (as mr fox said, whether you think it was enough time was irrelevant) for the previous crime, and it shouldn't affect the sentence for whatever other crime he has committed. I'm in no way trying to condone what he did.... obviously, but the system has to work. (or at least appear to be working)

bails87

Reminds me of the mess with John Terry, in that it's the papers that seem to be outraged on behalf of everyone else. The papers talk about rising controversy and mounting pressure, but they're the ones creating it. And all the fuss about however much it cost to give him a new identity, didn't one of the papers, possibly a solar based one, reveal part or all of his identity. If they hadn't done that then they'd have had nothing to be outraged about.

To the OP, the fact that you call him an animal and a scrote shows that you, along with many others, are already biased against him. He should be tried for the crimes he's allegedly just commited, not punished for one that he's already been convicted and sentenced for.

MacAndCheese

Splottboy wrote:

Why the hell is this animal getting better-than-fair-treatment?

His name is irrelevant to whether he committed a crime. Remember in terms of the law this crime is a completely separate incident to his first crime which he has served his time for (you may not agree with this - but in the eyes of the law he has). If you want him to be locked up again (which I assume you do) then you want him to get a fair a trial as possible or the first thing he and his lawyers will do is appeal that he hasn't had a fair trial and we'll be back to square one.

thekickingmule

Splottboy wrote:

The scrote known as JV previously, is apparently facing charges for *****************

There is no evidence of this as yet. The papers are saying 'we should have a right to be told' however, the law says that have absolutely no reason to be told.

The papers are making this allegation, the government neither admits nor denies the paper. If it does either, there would be a media storm. If they said 'actually its not for the reasons you've reported' the papers would come up with another 'fact'.

Let him have his trial. The one thing I do believe is that he will be back in prison, mainly for his own safety, but as a criminologist (I think that's what he was) said on Breakfast this morning, he probably won't be given a new identity in the future as it becomes clear he may not be trusted with what he's done.

stubs

In Merseyside a lot of this bollocks is being orchestrated by a permatanned rabble rousing wanker by the name of Pete Price a radio presenter on Radio City and a columnist for the Liverpool Echo.

He has been squealing on radio, Tv and in the paper that the public has a right to know what Venables has done. Despite the fact that Jamie Bulgers mother does not want this information to go public.

One of the reasons for this to be kept out of the public eye is this. Imagine you were the victim of the alleged crime well if the likes of that tosser Price get his way your name address and face are going to be spread all over the media.

Anonymity in sex crimes works for the victim and the perpetrator.

77ric

it basically come down too one simple thing, can a jury be put together that will be fair and unbiased?

under the name of jon venebales? i very much doubt it.

with details of his alleged crime, spread all over the media? nearly impossible.

if no jury can be reasonably believed to be unbiased against the accused, then the judge is required to drop the case, full stop. JV would then walk away a free man. if he has committed the alleged crime, then this is wrong.

ultimately the general public have to realise that these laws that give anonymity are there for the purpose of protecting the due process of the courts.

the red tops have skirted very close to breaking the law in recent years, with regards to high profile cases. IANAL but IMHO 2 prominent cases could have had their jury's biased by the papers. in both the case against Nat Fraser, and the case against Luke Mitchell, may have not received fair trial, national red tops declared in headlines that the accused were guilty before the cases went to trial, this is wrong.

stubs

77ric Just had a quick read about the Luke Mitchell case. Blimey that sounds like the dodgiest conviction I have ever heard about. Statements being changed a month after the arrest. Wonder if the police helped the eyewitnesses rewrite there statements, you know just to get the spelling correct. As for all that Marilyn Manson crap, 1 CD and a poster wooh every spotty teenage winker in the country must be a murderer then.

llamafarmer

There was some tool on the radio yesterday (and he was in a position of authority too, not just some random punter, but I forget his exact role) saying the public had a right to know and that the jury would be told to judge him only by the facts presented at the trial and that should be enough. Rubbish! It's already turned into a trial by media and we don't even know for sure what the new alleged crime is. I think it's a shame the journos/papers that let slip that it was JV can't be held in contempt of court.

I hate all the dribbling vigilantism that the tabloids stir up over crimes like this. No matter how evil the crime EVERYBODY has the basic human right to a fair trial. I'm just glad to see that the OP is in the minority on here.

OwenBird

Media sensationalism is not a new thing. I firmly believe that the mass media (not our beloved future...) only cares about returns. This means shifting papers and selling advertising space. Unfortunately people buy this rubbish so the business is perpetuated.

Mass media and Advertising is the root cause of a lot of society's problems, IMO.

Anonymous

i reckon you have only paid for your crimes if you stop commiting crimes once you have supposedly finished paying.

if a man is guilty of one crime, he pays for it with jail time, he is then a welcome member of society.

if a man commits a crime, goes to jail, doesnt learn his lesson and still feels the need to commit more crime even though he has been given the best start in the world, he doesnt deserve a fair trial, he deserves more jail for longer.

Fantastic Mr Fox

OwenBird wrote:

Media sensationalism is not a new thing. I firmly believe that the mass media (not our beloved future...) only cares about returns. This means shifting papers and selling advertising space. Unfortunately people buy this rubbish so the business is perpetuated.

Mass media and Advertising is the root cause of a lot of society's problems, IMO.

Well durrr!

They're a business, they don't think 'oh that's a nice story, we'll put that on the front cover even though it won't sell very many copies'...

Thewaylander

Fantastic Mr Fox wrote:

OwenBird wrote:

Media sensationalism is not a new thing. I firmly believe that the mass media (not our beloved future...) only cares about returns. This means shifting papers and selling advertising space. Unfortunately people buy this rubbish so the business is perpetuated.

Mass media and Advertising is the root cause of a lot of society's problems, IMO.

Well durrr!

They're a business, they don't think 'oh that's a nice story, we'll put that on the front cover even though it won't sell very many copies'...

Indeed,

But think back a few months northern rock.. they were only in slight problems and would have recoveed in time.. the news papers picked up sensationalized it.. alot of people withdrew savings and so and and the company floundered.

The media has to learn a sense of responsability for it's actions rather than just making money. the media has huge ability to cause companies and the country problems, alot of very knoledgable people would say the recent depression wasn't really that bad but the huge spin put on it by the papers panicked this hell out of less informed people and hey presto it got alot worse...

yoohoo999

Splottboy wrote:

The scrote known as JV previously, is apparently facing charges for *****************

So, the solicitor who represented the Baby P "protectors" stated on Radio 5 Live,
"They would change his name, age and other FACTS to hide JV's identity. The FACTS given would not affect the outcome, but only stop jurors knowing who he was..."
( His name,age address and other details would be changed, altered, adapted etc...)

That means, they ask 12 Jurors, to be Truthful, Honest and Righteous, swear on a Bible, but, all the time they are being LIED to? Is this RIGHT, FAIR, HONEST?

Why the hell is this animal getting better-than-fair-treatment?

In know if it was me, or my family,friends being put on trial, I'd want a FAIR trial, but, it seems as though the "Power That Be" are bending over backwards to assist him...

And this is why people like you are kept as far away from the judiciary as possible.........inability to separate your emotions stirred by what you consider is "morally correct" and the rule of law and logic.

I always used to laugh at the girls (not being sexist, but there wasn't one boy) at law school who wanted to become a lawyer "to fight injustice". The problem was, that they wanted to fight what they percevied was injustice based on their subjective moral principles.

They also happened to be the people that dropped out at the first indication that you can't "beat the system", because the system actually does what it does for a reason, and the judiciary would quite like it to stay that way.

In saying that, one of them is doing very well handling pro bono asylum appeal cases while she works for a local council. Think that's about as close as you get to satisfying your quest for moral justice.

Pertinent to your right to a fair trial is to be tried for the offence you have been charged with, without the jury having full knowledge of previous crimes. He's one of the most high profile killers in the country - how could he possibly have a fair trial here if his true identity was revealed..........there will be plenty of emotional wrecks like you on the jury, ready to convict before you've even heard what he's been charged with.

Get a grip. The judiciary isn't in the habit of granting special priviledges to people to lessen their chances of conviction - it's to protect that person (who at this point is innocent), any 3rd parties, and the rule of law.

llamafarmer

Thewaylander wrote:

The media has to learn a sense of responsability for it's actions rather than just making money.

Amen to that.

Fantastic Mr Fox

llamafarmer wrote:

Thewaylander wrote:

The media has to learn a sense of responsability for it's actions rather than just making money.

Amen to that.

They should, but nothing can be done.

Other than censorship in some form or another, which is a bad idea.

RichMTB

We are the angry mob we read the papers every day...

Hang 'im I say in fact 'anging is too good for 'im if youse ask me, crucifixation I say.

An' if i see any of those dirty paediatricians kill them as well!

stubs

By the powers invested in me by News International I AM THE PAEDOFINDER GENERAL

Thewaylander

Actually i will take the moral high ground here, and say I refuse to buy newpapers due to the terrible things they do.

They are controlled by the buyer and while the human race is as horrible as it is they will be supported.

but then remember i'm going to take over the world then i iwll controlt he press muhaha

Northwind

sheepsteeth wrote:

if a man commits a crime, goes to jail, doesnt learn his lesson and still feels the need to commit more crime even though he has been given the best start in the world, he doesnt deserve a fair trial, he deserves more jail for longer.

The point of the fair trial is to decide if he did it

77ric wrote:

in both the case against Nat Fraser, and the case against Luke Mitchell, may have not received fair trial, national red tops declared in headlines that the accused were guilty before the cases went to trial, this is wrong.

In vague relatedness, I once kicked Luke Mitchell in the balls. He is a total, total sh***hawk, I wouldn't have minded doing it again. But he definately did not get a fair trial.

Just to spell it out for the hard of thinking, the problem with unfair trials is
1) People get sent to prison who shouldn't
2) The person who actually committed the crime never gets caught
3) People get sent to prison then get their convictions overturned because the trial was unfair, and end up getting released, even though they might well have actually committed the offence.