And you're only talking about its value as a means of identifying the person who left it (though I'd add that it's a pretty good and reliable statistical indicator, at least when you are comparing a crime scene sample with a known suspect as opposed to using it to find a suspect from a massive database!) ... which is something entirely different from it's evidential value as showing / proving what actually happened ...
The jury's out (forever): first Crown Court trial without a jury to be heard
- Thread starter Azrael
- Start date
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
Alleged jury tampering. The details of which we don't know. Because the judge thinks we shouldn't know. Although if no jury is to be involved then surely there's nothing anyone could say about the jury, or the defendants for that matter, which will prejudice the trial
Unless the judge is somehow keeping information from himself of course...
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
You have, I take it, a source for this fascinating piece of information?
I'd agree on the evidential value bit, FWIW.
The database trawl is actually statistically likely to produce many false matches! (12 or 13 matching sites, each site can only have a small number of values, the pool of UK DNA is not diverse enough to cover all possibilities anyway...)
Yes. It's called life experience. It's everywhere - schools, parents, public places, night time economy .... Only an idiot wouldn't see the changes.
No. Because the judge has decided there is some reason for not releasing it ... which could be one of many (not least of which may be so as not to undermine an ongoing investigation to try and actually trace those responsible.
But hey, bearing in mind that thousands of judges quite happily allow thousands of trials to go ahead with juries every week, why not assume that there's no reason for this at all and it's just the government / establishment / judges / "them" pulling the plug on an absolute whim ...
That is why I said there was a difference between it's reliability as a piece of identifying evidence when used to match against a single, known suspect as opposed to trawling a database for matches (though we could debate the stats of the false positives all day and probably still not know for sure ...). The other thing that needs to be kept in mind is that the current process only uses a very limited way of comparing the different DNA - there is very significant scope for future development to provide more definitive testing (ultimately towards individual sequencing of the genomes which are generally believed to be absolutely unique for each individual) ... and even if that is much more complex / slow / expensive it could be used in cases where the original match using todays techniques are challenged (the vast, vast majority of which are not, by the way)
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
Really? Because when I witnessed a shooting and stupidly called the police and gave a statement to the regular plod and then a detective came the next day to take a formal statement and mentioned something about me maybe going to have to go into witness protection, and I said, well, what if I decide not to give evidence then, if I don't want to go into witness protection, and the detective told me in that case I would be served with a summons/subpoena or something and if I didn't turn up then I would be up for contempt of court and I would be put away for that.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
How about having disciplined prisons that enforce silence, separation and hard labour, instead of pointless lock-ups or chaotic slums awash with drugs, where armed robbers can use the telephone, have regular visits, run wings and enjoy "respect" from other inmates. Add the death penalty for premeditated murder, and witness tampering becomes much less attractive.How exactly do you propose "scaring" gangsers (seeing as life sentences for armed robbery do not "scare" them into stoping doing armed robberies / murders ...)
Of course, we could try rigorous punishment before criminals escalate to armed robbery.
As for nobbling judges, add in all the judge's friends and relatives, and it isn't just one person. If crooks aren't afraid to pervert justice, those little words can be had with a worryingly large number of people. The underlying problem doesn't go away.
I'm unaware of a right not to be tried if there's a prima facie case against you, but conviction isn't likely, or "in the public interest". But even if ditching the CPS test did somehow diminish defendant's rights, it doesn't change the inconsistency in removing jury trial in a tiny number of cases yet dropping thousands more because a conviction isn't likely. If Labour are so concerned with public safety, shouldn't they be getting more people to trial? The obvious answer is that their concern public safety is a red herring, and they want rid of the jury.
As to why we disrespect authority more than we did, that's a whole other thread, but a tough law could hold the line while we worked on it.
No such right exists in Scotland. The prosecution decide on the method of disposal. This is usually determined by the target sentence (District Court - 60 days/£2,500 fine; Sheriff - one year/£5,000).
It works perfectly - if only they'd raise the tariff for Sheriffs, we could save a fortune in Legal Aid.
You are bog_brush * ... and I claim my £5
(* As seen in "From the Message Boards" in Private Eye)
Just because some idiot detective said it doesn't mean it's true.Really? Because when I witnessed a shooting and stupidly called the police and gave a statement to the regular plod and then a detective came the next day to take a formal statement and mentioned something about me maybe going to have to go into witness protection, and I said, well, what if I decide not to give evidence then, if I don't want to go into witness protection, and the detective told me in that case I would be served with a summons/subpoena or something and if I didn't turn up then I would be up for contempt of court and I would be put away for that.
"Witness Protection" is an extreme measure and costs (literally) hundreds of thousands. It is NOT used routinely and it is certainly not something that a DC should be discussing with a witness at such an early stage. It would only ever be something considered for an absolutely crucial witness in an extremely serious case (though a shooting may be such a case) where there was no other evidence.
What they should have been talking about is (a) how rare any sort of repurcussions against a genuine, honest witness (as opposed to a pissed off former partner in crime or someone else known to the suspect) are; (b) how there are various measures available which can be used to protect a witness in the rare cases when that happens and (c) how important it is that people who witness serious crime stand up and support our CJS by giving evidence, otherwise the bad guys win.
If you were still unwilling to provide a statement, they would then be quite right to point out that you could be summonsed to Court and, if you then refused to tell the Court what you had seen, you could be dealt with for contempt of Court and that might mean imprisonment. That is the situation in England and Wales. Though (a) it shouldn't be used or threatened until after all other persuasion has been tried and (b) it's hardly ever used and even less cases result in any proceedings for Contempt of Court (and usually only where there is some maliciousness in the silence (such as the witness wanting to say nothing to positively help the suspect)).
It is the realisation of the ineffectiveness of these means that was one of the factors behind the legislatio which allows statements to be read in cases where witnesses have been threatened into non-appearance (this only refers to formal, written witness statements, by the way, not verbal accounts given to officers (though there have been similar relaxations of the rules against heresay which make that more possible now too)).
Personally I think there should be stronger and more effective means to bring witnesses before the Courts - whilst it remains pretty much their choice, with no sanction, it is very easy for them to act on unrealistic fears or to be persuaded not to cooperate with the CJS where they know the suspect. A sanction against the witness for refusal would give them the "I didn't really want to, but they made me" option, just as is the justification in domestic abuse prosecutions without the victim's cooperation.
Ah .. the Daily Mail approach.
I am unaware of extensive research proving that brutalisation of prisoners is more effective or a generally good thing (though there is perhaps scope for making imprisonment somewhat less comfortable than it is).
And (especially if you remove the saftey net of lawyers assessing the evidence before allowing a case to go to trial only if they conclude there is sufficient admissible evidence to make a conviction likely) I am afraid I do not share your faith in the infallibility of any system of justice and I would far rather that ninety-nine guilty men were sentenced to life imprisonment than one innocent man be hanged.
It'd depend on which Crown Court you chose for a start! (I remember seeing some ridiculous stats years ago showing a range from something like 40% (Snaresbrook) to 96% (Knutsford, Cheshire)).
On average I would guess the Magistrates conviction rate would be a bit higher, but not massively so now (primarily because of the CPS raising the bar for prosecution to the point where, theoretically, there is no reason why any trial at either Court should end in a failure to convict).
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Brutalising prisoners would be a disaster and isn't what I suggested. I suggested an austere and disciplined prison regime that gives prisoners time to dwell on their crime in decent conditions and free from the constant intimidation of the current system. Do you think moves like denying violent convicts regular visits, access to the telephone, and contact with weaker inmates would do no good?
As for the CPS sufficiency test being a safety net, if vague criteria like "in the public interest" and "conviction probable" free innocent people, it's largely coincidental. They'll free a lot of guilty people as well. Jury unanimity would do far more to safeguard innocents, especially if the jury was composed of responsible adults over the age of 21. (12-0 votes would also cut down on wrongful acquittals.)
No system of justice is infallible. Principled objection to the taking of innocent life allows no exceptions. Without rehashing the hanging thread, we accept armed police can shoot innocent people, always without due process and appeal. Regardless, we could try the austere prison regime without hanging and see how it went. If armed robbers are to be deterred, it's likely to be long before they escalate to hold-ups.
The public interest does precisely that - the question is not even asked until the sufficiency of evidence is decided, so the only cases abandoned on the basis of it not being in the public interest to proceed are those which the CPS considered would succeed.
Are you suggesting that no-one should be acquitted unless the jury were unanimous in deciding they were not guilty?
If so, that is a massive change from now and one which is guaranteed to result in the vast majority of juries being deadlocked. The current system is "one-way" - conviction on a 12-0 unanimous basis or 11-1 / 10-2 majority basis, otherwise acquittal. The number of cases in which there would be a unanimous not guilty would be tiny I think ... (not that anyone knows).
Only if there are honestly held, objectively assessible grounds for believing that it is necessary for the immediate protection of self or other. The death penalty would never be that.
SpookyFrank
Don't swallow the cap
Are you insane? Make prisons even more unpleasant than they already are; deny people the right to occasionally see their loved ones, children the right to see their incarcerated fathers; bring back the death penalty; and this will make people less likely to try and evade the justice system by fixing trials? Before you talk about getting tough on crime you should pause to remember that smoking as much crack as you clearly do is a pretty serious crime in itself.
AnnO'Neemus
Is so vanilla
She only mentioned it to me because when she arrived, she asked me whether I owned or rented my flat, and I said I was renting but was about to buy because I liked living there. I thought she was making small talk before we got down to the business of her taking down my statement. And then she took a call on her mobile and went into my hallway, and I overheard her telling a colleague that no, I didn't want to move because I liked living there.Just because some idiot detective said it doesn't mean it's true.
"Witness Protection" is an extreme measure and costs (literally) hundreds of thousands. It is NOT used routinely and it is certainly not something that a DC should be discussing with a witness at such an early stage. It would only ever be something considered for an absolutely crucial witness in an extremely serious case (though a shooting may be such a case) where there was no other evidence.
What they should have been talking about is (a) how rare any sort of repurcussions against a genuine, honest witness (as opposed to a pissed off former partner in crime or someone else known to the suspect) are; (b) how there are various measures available which can be used to protect a witness in the rare cases when that happens and (c) how important it is that people who witness serious crime stand up and support our CJS by giving evidence, otherwise the bad guys win.
If you were still unwilling to provide a statement, they would then be quite right to point out that you could be summonsed to Court and, if you then refused to tell the Court what you had seen, you could be dealt with for contempt of Court and that might mean imprisonment. That is the situation in England and Wales. Though (a) it shouldn't be used or threatened until after all other persuasion has been tried and (b) it's hardly ever used and even less cases result in any proceedings for Contempt of Court (and usually only where there is some maliciousness in the silence (such as the witness wanting to say nothing to positively help the suspect)).
It is the realisation of the ineffectiveness of these means that was one of the factors behind the legislatio which allows statements to be read in cases where witnesses have been threatened into non-appearance (this only refers to formal, written witness statements, by the way, not verbal accounts given to officers (though there have been similar relaxations of the rules against heresay which make that more possible now too)).
Personally I think there should be stronger and more effective means to bring witnesses before the Courts - whilst it remains pretty much their choice, with no sanction, it is very easy for them to act on unrealistic fears or to be persuaded not to cooperate with the CJS where they know the suspect. A sanction against the witness for refusal would give them the "I didn't really want to, but they made me" option, just as is the justification in domestic abuse prosecutions without the victim's cooperation.
So I asked her about what she meant, and she said that if the case when to court, then I might have to go into witness protection. My vantage point was such that I had a view that was only possible from three particular flats, well two really. One ground floor flat the view was blocked by a fence. The middle flat which had the same perspective/view was occupied by a bloke. I was the only women living in the block of three flats, only two of which offered that particular view.
And in hindsight it was probably Doddington/Gooch related, so yeah, they would have wanted it to go to court if they could make it stick, and I would have been the only/material witness to have been stupid enough to call the police and make a statement.
If it's related to estate-based gangs then that is one of the very few areas where repurcussions against a non-involved witness ARE a genuine problem (the gangs tend to terrorise all the residents of their estate or whatever into silence and even if they have no direct connection with them they tend to react as if they did - almost a how dare you grass up your gang!).
It's also likely that one of the common easy options on such estates, where there is signficant rented social housing, is to arrange a move, something that often goes down well with the witness anyway ... and so it may be that it becomes something that is considered very early in an investigation, certainly much earlier than would normally be the case.
Doesn't alter the fact that their approach was all wrong though.
(And, despite the hassle (shorter-term, personal interests), it is NOT "stupid" to call the police and make a statement - it is your civic duty to do so, especially with such a serious crime, and absolutely fucking stupid (longer-term, general community interests) not to!)
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
English law used to operate in the way you're describing. All jury verdicts had to be unanimous until 1967, but only 4% of juries hung. All but two US States require unanimity for both guilt and acquittal, as does Canada. So I see no reason to think that anywhere close to a majority of juries would be deadlocked if we ditched Roy Jenkins' nasty cost-cutting scheme.Are you suggesting that no-one should be acquitted unless the jury were unanimous in deciding they were not guilty?
English juries can still hang, albeit less than they did.
True, that's not its purpose. My point was, if we allow innocent life to be taken by mistake in one circumstance, you can't dismiss others on principle. Besides, we don't just allow death in cases of immediate risk. The (unwanted) deaths caused by cars don't cause the government to restrict driving. Ditto deaths from over the counter medicines, or sports injuries.
It's much more succinct to post "Are you on crack?!", and saves me the trouble of reading the rest of the post. Thanks.
If you can manage a reply without the ad hominem I'll reply. Incidentally, how would you deal with jury tamperers?
You are failing to acknowledge the aspect of urgency and necessity in self-defence which totally does not apply in the case of the death penalty. And deaths caused indirectly by other lawful activities are precisely that - indirect not deliberate - which makes them a totally different proposition.
Azrael
circling Airstrip One
Wrongful execution is also not deliberate, and falls in the same category as unwanted road deaths. If you think rightful execution is wrong it's a different matter.
I acknowledge the urgency in self-defence (or defence of others), but driving doesn't have the same urgency, and neither do sports. We accept unwanted yet inevitable deaths in several different circumstances, so cannot be against hanging solely on that ground.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
butchersapron
Bring back hanging
Never ever going to see him again
DotCommunist
So many particulars. So many questions.
tbf, If I was looking at trial without jury when I had 2 mill I'd think 'fuck it' and skip the hefty bail.
He'll be sipping cocktails in some non-extradition haven.
He'll be sipping cocktails in some non-extradition haven.
skyscraper101
0891 50 50 50
Never fear, we're the most CCTV'd city on earth. Surely he won't have defied our mighty city surveillance.
... and "No Defendant = No Justice" either. I presume all the protestors will be proactively trying to persuade him to return ... not.Protestor's Placards at previous demo said:
Similar threads
