Talk about character assassination....

berliner

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial


Oh and by the way I believe in Capital Punishment. If and only if conclusively guilty.

TuckerUK

'Conclusively guilty' eh? And obviously you'll put in place some new system to decide this, because our current system is unable to with 100% accuracy.

Perhaps your new system will include a caveat that allows for ten of you loved ones to be executed for each wrongly convicted and executed innocent?

You''ll be executioner of course, a bit unfair and cowardly to ask someone else to take a life on your behalf?

And if the system is allowed to terminate the life of wrong doers, I don't see why I can't too, even if it is only a perceived wrong.

And what's to stop all those wrong doers who think they've passed they've death penalty threshold from going on a killing spree?

Happy New Year!

Pokerface

TuckerUK wrote:

'Conclusively guilty' eh? And obviously you'll put in place some new system to decide this, because our current system is unable to with 100% accuracy.

Perhaps your new system will include a caveat that allows for ten of you loved ones to be executed for each wrongly convicted and executed innocent?

You''ll be executioner of course, a bit unfair and cowardly to ask someone else to take a life on your behalf?

And if the system is allowed to terminate the life of wrong doers, I don't see why I can't too, even if it is only a perceived wrong.

And what's to stop all those wrong doers who think they've passed they've death penalty threshold from going on a killing spree?

Happy New Year!

So, are you for it or against it?

John Stevenson

What do the topic title and the first two lines of your post mean and how do they relate to each other?

What's the difference between 'conclusively guilty' and 'guilty beyond reasonable doubt'?

What do you believe the death penalty would achieve? Please give specific examples of death penalty jurisdictions where it has achieved that aim.

shouldbeinbed

berliner wrote:

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial


Oh and by the way I believe in Capital Punishment. If and only if conclusively guilty.

Explain ? HRA is a wideranging doc, A6 covers a fair few points, you could have any number of issues, should we guess?

Would you believe in it if it was your evidence or your decision that condemned the person to death?

Would you have hanged the conclusively guilty Birmingham 6, or Stefan Kizko? Edward Evans was conclusively guilty of murdering his wife, right up till they figured it was Chridtie really. Where do you stand on diminished responsibility?

Peter Sutcliffe, a half blinded pariah wanting release, Ians Brady & Huntly wanting to die. If you believe in retribution, which is basically what capital punishment boils down to, surely better to have them suffer living incarceration against their wishes than give them their desired freedom.

StillGoing

At the present cost of a UK prisoner do you really think that is cost effective. especially when the majority of hardened criminals consider HMP to be a holiday camp?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... dprobation

We have more murders now than when we had the death penalty, accepting that the population has grown hugely and with it an influx of foreigners whose value on life isn't possibly as great as people born and raised here. But consequently, more idiots are prepared to walk around with weapons, just in case you understand, but end up using them out of fear of being caught or because it is taken off of them by their assailant who opts to use it against them. The majority of murders are domestic related. The majority of murder victims will know their assailant. Stranger killings are thankfully uncommon and more akin to fights outside nightclubs that go terribly wrong.

I think there is a case for capital punishment in certain circumstances, but equally, sometimes the guilty person will have been pushed to the extremes, (battered housewives/husbands/children) and seen killing as their only escape. But tossers wh encourage misguided fools to strap explosives to themselves and go blow up countless innocent individuals could swing quite happily for me.

balthazar

philthy3 wrote:

At the present cost of a UK prisoner do you really think that is cost effective. especially when the majority of hardened criminals consider HMP to be a holiday camp?

The conclusion in the article you cite is that these things are more cost effective than straightforward incarceration:

-Residential drug treatment programmes
-Educational and vocational programmes
- Investment in the prison system.

It doesn't mention murdering prisoners as a viable improvement. (Or holiday camps)

finchy

berliner wrote:

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial

Er, what exactly is all this about? :?

jim453

No idea either.

Seems to have potential though.

BigJimmyB

A wild guess - something to do with the ex-scoolteacher currently being held on suspicion of murder in Bristol?

BigJimmyB

Edit - he's been bailed.

StillGoing

balthazar wrote:

philthy3 wrote:

At the present cost of a UK prisoner do you really think that is cost effective. especially when the majority of hardened criminals consider HMP to be a holiday camp?

The conclusion in the article you cite is that these things are more cost effective than straightforward incarceration:

-Residential drug treatment programmes
-Educational and vocational programmes
- Investment in the prison system.

It doesn't mention murdering prisoners as a viable improvement. (Or holiday camps)

No, but it is the Guardian. I'm surprised they don't advocate giving them a nice sugar lollipop and sending them on their way home with a leaflet on how to vote Liberal.

StillGoing

BigJimmyB wrote:

A wild guess - something to do with the ex-scoolteacher currently being held on suspicion of murder in Bristol?

But he hasn't been charged yet so why would he want a trial? The Police can hold a suspect for indictable offences for up to 36 hours. Beyond that they have to satisfy the Magistrates that there is sufficient reason to continue holding the suspect and the magistrates can extend detention up to a maximum of 96 hours. They have to show that the investigation is being carried out dilligently and expeditiously and that continued detention is necessary to prevent the loss of evidence or lead to the alerting of others invloved. Magistrates do not like granting the additional time so they won't have granted the extension to 96 hours on a whim. Alternatively the police can go straight to the magistrates and ask for a 96 hour period of detention from the moment of arrest if they believe the investigation is going to be prolonged. As soon as there is sufficient evidence to charge, they have to return himn to the court.

If new evidence is found, a suspect can be arrested on the new evidence and be held up to the full 96 hours again. If no new evidence is found, the police only have what is left on the detention clock.


The landlord would have raised suspicions and without arrest there is no power to enter his property to search for evidence relating to the offence. The arresting officer would have to convince a Sergeant in the cells that the arrest was necessary, what the grounds were and what the offence is. The detention beyond 24 hours would have to be authorised by a Superintendant or above and the detention beyond 36 hours by a magistrate. For all of them to be agreeing to the detention, there is clearly something that points to this individual not being as straight as it seems.

Smokin Joe

berliner wrote:

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial


Oh and by the way I believe in Capital Punishment. If and only if conclusively guilty.

You mean like the Guildford four and the Birmingham six were?

Or Sion Jenkins and Barry George and countless more.

finchy

Smokin Joe wrote:

berliner wrote:

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial


Oh and by the way I believe in Capital Punishment. If and only if conclusively guilty.

You mean like the Guildford four and the Birmingham six were?

Or Sion Jenkins and Barry George and countless more.

It's OK - just put their bodies in ice, and then if they are found innocent at a later date, bring them back to life when the technology exists.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

It's OK - just put their bodies in ice, and then if they are found innocent at a later date, bring them back to life when the technology exists.

Ice? Bet the the prisoners would be happy with that

spen666

berliner wrote:

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial


Oh and by the way I believe in Capital Punishment. If and only if conclusively guilty.

Please explain what the title has to do with Article 6

Please also explain why you seemingly appear opposed to people having a right to a Fair Trial

spen666

philthy3 wrote:

BigJimmyB wrote:

A wild guess - something to do with the ex-scoolteacher currently being held on suspicion of murder in Bristol?

But he hasn't been charged yet so why would he want a trial? The Police can hold a suspect for indictable offences for up to 36 hours. Beyond that they have to satisfy the Magistrates that there is sufficient reason to continue holding the suspect and the magistrates can extend detention up to a maximum of 96 hours. They have to show that the investigation is being carried out dilligently and expeditiously and that continued detention is necessary to prevent the loss of evidence or lead to the alerting of others invloved. Magistrates do not like granting the additional time so they won't have granted the extension to 96 hours on a whim.

In reality the Magistrates rarely ever refuse an application for an extension of time

Alternatively the police can go straight to the magistrates and ask for a 96 hour period of detention from the moment of arrest if they believe the investigation is going to be prolonged.

An application like this would fail as the police couldn't show they had conducted the investigation with all due diligence

As soon as there is sufficient evidence to charge, they have to return himn to the court.

no, they could bail him at that stage, or a decision could be taken not to charge him- for example on public interest grounds
You are right to the extent that generally questioning must cease once they believe their is sufficient evidence to charge the suspect

If new evidence is found, a suspect can be arrested on the new evidence and be held up to the full 96 hours again. If no new evidence is found, the police only have what is left on the detention clock.

Not for the same offence he can't. The clock is not reset for the same offence
If the police could claim new evidence re set the clock, they would never need to go to court, and who would decide which evidence is new ?

The landlord would have raised suspicions and without arrest there is no power to enter his property to search for evidence relating to the offence.

Well apart from the application to the court for a search warrant of course. Thousands of such warrants are executed every year

The arresting officer would have to convince a Sergeant in the cells that the arrest was necessary, what the grounds were and what the offence is. The detention beyond 24 hours would have to be authorised by a Superintendant or above and the detention beyond 36 hours by a magistrate. For all of them to be agreeing to the detention, there is clearly something that points to this individual not being as straight as it seems.

Alternatively, it could be that the police were just making their investigation. The fact someone is arrested and even has their detention extended by a Superintendent of a court to the max allowed does not imply guilt or otherwise. It does not suggest someone is straight or not. The Superintendent nor the Magistrates are deciding if their is evidence that someone is guilty or not. The suspect does not get a chance to make representations to the Superintendent or Magistrates on the evidence as such.The extension of detention is more about timeliness of police investigation than guilt or otherwise.

Frank the tank

Exscuse my ignorance but what is the essence of this thread is it the right to a fair trial, capital punishment, mental health, prisoners rights, human rights. Please tell me as I don't understand the OP as it is so vague.

balthazar

Frank the tank wrote:

Exscuse my ignorance but what is the essence of this thread is it the right to a fair trial, capital punishment, mental health, prisoners rights, human rights. Please tell me as I don't understand the OP as it is so vague.

There doesn't seem to be an essence. The OP was probably posting pissed, judging by the time and the senselessness.

Pokerface

Troll posts and then walks away and leave the forum to slowly self-destruct.


Brilliant.

StillGoing

spen666 wrote:

In reality the Magistrates rarely ever refuse an application for an extension of time

Rubbish. The magistrates are desperate to show they are independant of the investigation process.

An application like this would fail as the police couldn't show they had conducted the investigation with all due diligence

You need to read PACE more often. An application such as this has been made recently in the MPS.

Not for the same offence he can't. The clock is not reset for the same offence
If the police could claim new evidence re set the clock, they would never need to go to court, and who would decide which evidence is new ?[quote]

Again, you need to read PACE. You can be arrested for the same offence on new evidence and have a completely new detention clock.

.

Alternatively, it could be that the police were just making their investigation. The fact someone is arrested and even has their detention extended by a Superintendent of a court to the max allowed does not imply guilt or otherwise. It does not suggest someone is straight or not. The Superintendent nor the Magistrates are deciding if their is evidence that someone is guilty or not. The suspect does not get a chance to make representations to the Superintendent or Magistrates on the evidence as such.The extension of detention is more about timeliness of police investigation than guilt or otherwise.[/quote]

And again. Representations can be made by the detained person or their legal representative. If the SUpt or the Magistrate does not believe there are sufficient grounds to detain the person any longer, they will not authorise the further detention. At £1,000 per hour for unlawful detention and your career screwed for evermore, would you put your name to an extension where no grounds exist? No, neither would they and especially given the magistrates afore mentioned desperation to show their independance from the investigation..

spen666

philthy3 wrote:

...
And again. Representations can be made by the detained person or their legal representative. If the SUpt or the Magistrate does not believe there are sufficient grounds to detain the person any longer, they will not authorise the further detention. At £1,000 per hour for unlawful detention and your career screwed for evermore, would you put your name to an extension where no grounds exist? No, neither would they and especially given the magistrates afore mentioned desperation to show their independance from the investigation..

Representations are not a review of "evidence". Defence can say we don't think there are grounds etc BUT neither the Superintendent nor the Magistrates are considering the evidence at this stage in detail.

To make an application for an extension that does not succeed is not going to harm an officer's career unless it is made in bad faith.

I invite you to give just one example of a case where an officer's career has been "screwed" as a result of an unsuccessful application for a warrant of further detention, excluding cases where application is made in bad faith

I'd also invite you to name any cases where magistrates have REFUSED completely an application for a warrant of further detention. They often grant a shorter period than applied for, but police can still come back at end of that period for more time.

The reality is the Magistrates will rarely ever refuse an application as they are not in a position to consider whether suspect can be properly bailed at that stage as the investigation is still on going

Frank the tank

Spen666 is Shami Chakrabarti and I claim my £10

finchy

Frank the tank wrote:

Spen666 is Shami Chakrabarti and I claim my £10

£10? It used to be £5 on here.

Does this reflect the true rate of inflation or are you just getting a bit greedy?

We all need to make sacrifices at times like this, Frank. We're in this together.

antfly

Smokin Joe wrote:

berliner wrote:

have you ever seen anything like it before?

Human Rights Act Article 6: Right to a Fair Trial


Oh and by the way I believe in Capital Punishment. If and only if conclusively guilty.

Or Sion Jenkins and Barry George and countless more.

That was a shocking miscarriage of justice, releasing Jenkins.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Frank the tank wrote:

Spen666 is Shami Chakrabarti and I claim my £10

£10? It used to be £5 on here.

Does this reflect the true rate of inflation or are you just getting a bit greedy?

We all need to make sacrifices at times like this, Frank. We're in this together.

Haaah!

rick_chasey

I remember when i was about 15 we had a class discussion on capital punishment in an exercise for presenting an argument.

The class was divided along the binary yes/no (because, after all, all arguments are binary :roll:) and we were given a fact sheet for both sides of the 'argument'.


The fact that stood out for me was that in the states - which is where you pretty much have to derive your evidence from - capital punishment of an individual cost an awful lot more than full time incaceration for the rest of their lives, due to the extreme legal costs involved. After all, even Americans know that because you can't really undo a capital punishment case you better make sure you get it right - so you go through trial after trial, appeal after appeal, etc.

Also, I thought it was beyond any reasonable doubt and indeed general common knowledge that the presence of capital punishment has no effect on the murder rate (as long as you don't count state executions as murder, obviously...)

Scrumple

meh




meh



more meh




troll + blather
armchair experts

meh

Karl2010

Pokerface wrote:

TuckerUK wrote:

'Conclusively guilty' eh? And obviously you'll put in place some new system to decide this, because our current system is unable to with 100% accuracy.

Perhaps your new system will include a caveat that allows for ten of you loved ones to be executed for each wrongly convicted and executed innocent?

You''ll be executioner of course, a bit unfair and cowardly to ask someone else to take a life on your behalf?

And if the system is allowed to terminate the life of wrong doers, I don't see why I can't too, even if it is only a perceived wrong.

And what's to stop all those wrong doers who think they've passed they've death penalty threshold from going on a killing spree?

Happy New Year!

So, are you for it or against it?

+1

StillGoing

spen666 wrote:

Representations are not a review of "evidence". Defence can say we don't think there are grounds etc BUT neither the Superintendent nor the Magistrates are considering the evidence at this stage in detail.

To make an application for an extension that does not succeed is not going to harm an officer's career unless it is made in bad faith.

I invite you to give just one example of a case where an officer's career has been "screwed" as a result of an unsuccessful application for a warrant of further detention, excluding cases where application is made in bad faith.

I'd also invite you to name any cases where magistrates have REFUSED completely an application for a warrant of further detention. They often grant a shorter period than applied for, but police can still come back at end of that period for more time.

The reality is the Magistrates will rarely ever refuse an application as they are not in a position to consider whether suspect can be properly bailed at that stage as the investigation is still on going

I invite you to show me where I have said that the magistrate will review the available evidence? They will decide on the grounds presented to them. The Supt will also consider the grounds and what are the potential costs and rewards for authorising or not authorising but will also have access to review the available evidence. I have also not said that a career is ruined by making a wrong application. What I have said is that authorising unlawful detention will wreck your career as a senior officer.

Do you really believe magistrates will routinely authorise warrants of further detention. That is implying that magistrates will not think or consider the rights of the suspect. It also implies that the courts are in league with the police or investigating body. That may happen in some of the third world countries or east European countries you visit, but not here.

Back to the OP perceived point; there is nothing wrong with the course of action the police have taken in the investigation of their main suspect with respect to any period of detention.