Install the app
How to install the app on iOS

Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.

Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.

This nurse Letby case

This is a bit unhinged. Yes, miscarriages of justice have happened and continue to happen. But if we back the system enough to deprive people of their liberty in the knowledge that there is a small chance that a miscarriage of justice has occurred then forcing a person found guilty by the system to face the judge and hear his sentence seems a very small ask. You’re clearly very exercised about it but I have no idea why. I’m open minded. Please tell why you think it is wrong.
On this occasion in hand it is a her.
Shove your opinion re 'unhinged'.

Go back and answer the question, how many potential guilty do you want brutalised to appear for sentencing.

Many thanks.

 
On this occasion in hand it is a her.
Shove your opinion re 'unhinged'.

Go back and answer the question, how many potential guilty do you want brutalised to appear for sentencing.

Many thanks.


All of them. Still no argument so I stand by the unhinged comment 100%. Do you think the innocent guy found guilty of rape would be more bothered about being forced to attend his sentencing or losing his liberty for circa 18 years? You haven’t put forward any coherent argument at all so far as to why it is objectionable.
 
All of them. Still no argument so I stand by the unhinged comment 100%. Do you think the innocent guy found guilty of rape would be more bothered about being forced to attend his sentencing or losing his liberty for circa 18 years? You haven’t put forward any coherent argument at all so far as to why it is objectionable.
17 years*

Why should the innocent confirm the inaccurate finding of the state?

Also he wasn't forced to attend*

How will you 'force' attendance?

"hello grandpa my old friend..."
 

Forcing people out of cells for sentencing purposes won’t work, for many reasons.

In my opinion, the best way to sort out the issue is to say going forward, anyone who doesn’t attend sentencing will spend an % of the sentence initially on a basic regime, instead of entering the prison system on standard.

if you know you’re doing the first 20% of your sentence for example on basic, regardless of what you got, it would be life changing to these people and I can guarantee almost no one would miss.

The likes of Cashman knows he couldn’t handle 8 years or so before he was considered for standard, it’s just not worth it to them. It’s such a big difference. They know their new life’s in prison and when there, they try to make the best of it.
 
I honestly wanted this to go one of two ways: a clear conviction based on a wealth of undenaiable evidence that she'd done what she was accused of, or a acquital based on the reverse. We got neither.

You want to override the criminal law burden of proof (guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, including the requirement to demonstrate all of the component parts of a murder charge at that standard), and replace it with your own standard: “clear conviction on undeniable evidence”.

The problem is that no one would ever be charged on your standard, because any criminal barrister worth their salt can discredit evidence; even admissions are not undeniable. That is literally the reason the current burden of proof has been construed, tried and tested over centuries in this manner.

The case itself has been deliberated and the convictions are extremely clear. She was found guilty to the aforementioned standard not of 1 count, but 14. She was on shift for all 75 incidents. She showed no remorse. It beggars belief that you are arguing an acquittal is an appropriate outcome for someone who has committed so many heinous crimes.
 
You want to override the criminal law burden of proof (guilty beyond all reasonable doubt, including the requirement to demonstrate all of the component parts of a murder charge at that standard), and replace it with your own standard: “clear conviction on undeniable evidence”.

The problem is that no one would ever be charged on your standard, because any criminal barrister worth their salt can discredit evidence; even admissions are not undeniable. That is literally the reason the current burden of proof has been construed, tried and tested over centuries in this manner.

The case itself has been deliberated and the convictions are extremely clear. She was found guilty to the aforementioned standard not of 1 count, but 14. She was on shift for all 75 incidents. She showed no remorse. It beggars belief that you are arguing an acquittal is an appropriate outcome for someone who has committed so many heinous crimes.
Of course, there's been no miscarriages of justice ever.

That's quite an abstract world you inhabit.
 


Welcome to GrandOldTeam

Get involved. Registration is simple and free.

Back
Top