DNA could release man found guilty of Southampton murder from prison after 27 years!

[Pot-Bellied Pig]

If I were on the jury of a capital crime I would either refuse to serve or vote not guilty no matter how heinous the crime or how obviously guilty they were. I would have no part in sending somebody to the gallows.



You're quite right but since when has logic had any bearing on the government / ACPO attitude to retaining DNA records?

I thought that the European Courts were deciding on the issue of DNA record retention and it is likely that all DNA data held on innocent parties would be destroyed. I would like to know how many people are convicted each year on DNA matches from the database held on non conviction records. If we had that answer then the issues would be clear.

People who get arrested and are never charged in my opinion should have their DNA taken and checked against outstanding crime scenes. If negative it should be destroyed.

People who get charged and are found not guilty should be the same as most criminals will come again. In short as long as the check is made why keep it longer ' just in case '.

In the same way I believe all visitors intending to stay more than six months in the UK should have a DNA/print check ...then it can be destroyed once they have left.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Yep. If the man claims that he had sex with the woman, but that it was consensual, then all the DNA in the world isn't going to help, because the guy's already admitted to physical contact. Not sure what the stats are in the UK, but last time i looked in the US, in a substantial number of rape cases the accused and the victim knew each other. Despite Hollywood sensationalism, most rapes are not the type where a stranger grabs the woman in a dark alley and holds a knife to her throat while he rapes her.

exactamundo... and I was told recently by someone who works in the criminal justice system that ALL defence lawyers tell clients at the police station that if they have been near the victim then they 'go consent'... the result being its very likely they wont even get charged.

 

[Pot-Bellied Pig]

What defence lawyers should do is offer the range of defences to the client.

If the victims DNA is present and the parties are known then evidence should be quite clear as to whether they were in a sexual relationship. If they were not then I would expect a charge and a jury trial. If they were the problem often is consent and since consent to intercourse can be withdrawn at anytime during the act then you have real problems in evidence with one persons word against another.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

Dont be so utterly ridiculous.... The opresence of DNA and a perpetrator known to the victim does not indicate any sort of 'clear sexual relationship' whatsoever.. and even if they had been in aany sort of relationship previously that does not rule out rape.

I know many men, if they raped me and their and my DNA was found (at the scene, on each other) how does that equate to it being clear I was having a sexual relationship with any of them? Does that mean in your eyes a woman shouldnt expect a charge and jury trial if she knows the perpetrator?

I cant believe a serving police officer has posted so much absolutely misguided, innacurate crap!

 

[ViolentPanda]

Indeed. It staggers me how lightly some people can dismiss the certainty - for that is what it is - that innocent people would die if the death penalty were to be reinstated.

There are unfortunately many people who favour a death penalty who never indulge in a moment's reflection on the theme of "what if me or mine were somehow involved in a murder?". They only see it in terms of "the guilty" being punished.
A fairly cursory examination of the history of the death sentence in the UK would inform such people that the lower down the "social order" you were, the more likely a conviction for murder meant an un-commuted death sentence. Do they really want to reinforce the "it's not what you know, it's who you know" ethos already prevalent in our criminal justice system by adding another layer of class cleavage to the execution (no pun intended) of "justice"?

 

[Bakunin]

There are unfortunately many people who favour a death penalty who never indulge in a moment's reflection on the theme of "what if me or mine were somehow involved in a murder?". They only see it in terms of "the guilty" being punished.
A fairly cursory examination of the history of the death sentence in the UK would inform such people that the lower down the "social order" you were, the more likely a conviction for murder meant an un-commuted death sentence. Do they really want to reinforce the "it's not what you know, it's who you know" ethos already prevalent in our criminal justice system by adding another layer of class cleavage to the execution (no pun intended) of "justice"?

Or, as the great American writer H.L Mencken once put it, in relation to the average condemned inmate and their place on the economic scale:

'Capital punishment: Those without the capital get the punishment.'

 

[Jon-of-arc]

What defence lawyers should do is offer the range of defences to the client.

I don't know where I got this crazy idea from, but I thought defence solicitors were obliged to take instruictions from a defendant and then present them in the best possible light to a court, not give possible excuses and allow the defendant to pick the most likely? I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong...

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The re-offending rate is zero.

Nah, the murderous fuckers just hang one person after another.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

I don't know where I got this crazy idea from, but I thought defence solicitors were obliged to take instruictions from a defendant and then present them in the best possible light to a court, not give possible excuses and allow the defendant to pick the most likely? I'm sure someone will correct me if I am wrong...

well they have to act on whatever the client tells them and then advise on the best course of action to get them off....
The only exception is if the client admits guilt to them in an interview but wants them to still claim they are innocent.
The rules say they cant act for them in that case unless they are pleading guilty- they have to hand it to someone else.

So I suspect the average convo in a case like this goes
Solicitor "Youve been accused of rape/sexual assault you going to put your hands up to it?"

Accused "No"

Solicitor "Did anything sexual take place?"

Accused "Yes"

Solicitor "Ok .... I think then you need to say consented to what went on... you must then give your account of what went on, they will have your DNA, that way its your version of events against hers which maximises your chances of not even getting charged because its consent which is disputed rather than whether you actually had sex/touched her"

 

[mhendo]

People who get arrested and are never charged in my opinion should have their DNA taken and checked against outstanding crime scenes.

What?

In this scenario, all a police officer would have to do in order to get a DNA sample would be to arrest someone on some trumped-up excuse. Then they could take the person's DNA, compare it against known crimes, and then let the person go with no charge.

What your proposal means, in effect, is that people could be compelled to submit to warrantless searches of their person based on nothing but the whim of some flat-footed, rabbit-brained PC Fucking Plod. The standard for taking DNA samples from a person needs to be MUCH, MUCH higher than that, otherwise the UK criminal justice system will end up as nothing but a series of fishing expeditions, where people are arrested just in order to eliminate them as suspects.

That's not a criminal justice system, it's a police state.

 

[Pot-Bellied Pig]

What?

In this scenario, all a police officer would have to do in order to get a DNA sample would be to arrest someone on some trumped-up excuse. Then they could take the person's DNA, compare it against known crimes, and then let the person go with no charge.

What your proposal means, in effect, is that people could be compelled to submit to warrantless searches of their person based on nothing but the whim of some flat-footed, rabbit-brained PC Fucking Plod. The standard for taking DNA samples from a person needs to be MUCH, MUCH higher than that, otherwise the UK criminal justice system will end up as nothing but a series of fishing expeditions, where people are arrested just in order to eliminate them as suspects.

That's not a criminal justice system, it's a police state.

DNA is taken whether you are charged or not now. That is fact and that is the issue here,

 

[mhendo]

DNA is taken whether you are charged or not now. That is fact and that is the issue here,

It's taken from every single person that is arrested? That's fucked up.

I amend my previous statement. The UK is not in danger of becoming a police state; it already is one.

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

It's taken from every single person that is arrested? That's fucked up.

I amend my previous statement. The UK is not in danger of becoming a police state; it already is one.

But its storage has been ruled to be in breach of the human rights act by the european court of human rights... so the UK govt have to change that, they just are in no hurry to do so

 

[Roadkill]

bump

Conviction quashed.

27 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit ... it doesn't bear thinking about. Poor bloke.

 

[Belushi]

The world has changed so much since 1982, must be so difficult to adapt. I hope he gets a massive fucking pay out so he can enjoy the rest of his life.

 

[bluestreak]

Conviction quashed.

27 years behind bars for a crime he didn't commit ... it doesn't bear thinking about. Poor bloke.

Aye, at least he isn't dead though like a load of the bastards on here would want.

 

[bluestreak]

The world has changed so much since 1982, must be so difficult to adapt. I hope he gets a massive fucking pay out so he can enjoy the rest of his life.

Most of which he'll have to pay back to HMP for board and lodging innit.

 

[Belushi]

I'd forgotten they do that, no fucking shame eh?

 

[RubyBlue]

Most of which he'll have to pay back to HMP for board and lodging innit.

Stephen Downing only got - the article says - £500,000 after 27 years - to me that amount is nothing!!! After 27 years you should get enough to live a comfortable life for the rest of your life. I remember seeing a documentary about those who had been released after being wrongly sentenced - they had to wait ages for any form of payout and virtually had to jump through hoops for any cash

 

[bluestreak]

I'd forgotten they do that, no fucking shame eh?

Not the slightest. No fucking humanity either.

 

[oneflewover]

The distubing thing about this case, and requires looking into, is that 10 years ago he had appealed and they said the evidence had been lost.

 

[badco]

Poor fucker will owe the Home Office a fortune in board and lodgings if he's found to be innocent.

Ye shocking is that!The poor cunt didn't choose to set up home in gaol for half his life and all of his prime

One the plus side he'll get a bastard fortune in compo

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

half a million is the cap.... doesnt work out at much once theyve taken 30 years of 'board and lodgings'

 

[badco]

half a million is the cap.... doesnt work out at much once theyve taken 30 years of 'board and lodgings'

Has this never been appealled?

 

[LilMissHissyFit]

yes, repeatedly, most notably by Michael O'brien, one of the Cardiff three

he lost

 

[badco]

yes, repeatedly, most notably by Michael O'brien, one of the Cardiff three

he lost

Shocking

 

[Badgers]

Cartoon on the front page of the Metro showed him being interviewed by press and saying 'I am looking forward to getting a job, a mortgage and shopping at Woolworths again'

 

[mhendo]

yes, repeatedly, most notably by Michael O'brien, one of the Cardiff three

he lost

I'd never heard of this case, so i did some searching for Cardiff Three and came up with this and this.

What the fuck was going on with the cops in Cardiff in the late '80s?

 

[Belushi]

What the fuck was going on with the cops in Cardiff in the late '80s?

Dont know what the situation is nowadays but South Wales Police used to be a bunch of really violent, dodgy bastards.

 

[Azrael]

Aye. Either that or they're simply projecting their blood lust onto the idea of "people it's ok to kill". They don't really give a shit about innocent or guilty, they just want blood.

If I just wanted blood, I wouldn't be arguing that Joseph Fritzl shouldn't be executed if his murder conviction would be manslaughter under the common law, as I did in the various threads on Austria's least favourite citizen. (Well, living anyhow.)

Arguments against capital punishment can be just as emotive, particularly when they stray into accusations of "state murder" and "ultimate hypocrisy", as they frequently do.

Mr Hodgson's confession was dubious. It's an argument for better procedural safeguards, not against capital punishment. Perfection isn't an option. Many people have been murdered by released murderers. There is no perfect answer.

Many who oppose the gallows support the right of the police to shoot dead people they reasonably believe to be a lethal threat to the public. Unlike executed murderers, those people didn't get due process, jury trial and appeal.