http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5216870.stm

Not much to say about this but the mother needs her head seeing to for letting him in after she knew him and what he was like, also if it was my child i would be doing prison for murder cause if i had my hands on him after what he had done, i'm sure it would be hard to figure out which piece of him goes were.

This guy should not be alowed to live anymore.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5216870.stm

Not much to say about this but the mother needs her head seeing to for letting him in after she knew him and what he was like, also if it was my child i would be doing prison for murder cause if i had my hands on him after what he had done, i'm sure it would be hard to figure out which piece of him goes were.

This guy should not be alowed to live anymore.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD

OFF with something else I think!

There head would be better

OFF with something else I think!

agreed! think all convicted paedos/rapists should be castrated that'll stop the nasty ******* :rant:

sorry have to disagree all convicted should be castrated and sent to a desert island to rot cause if there castrated and let back out they can still touch and submit these poor defenceless little ones to a life changeing ordeal eighter off with there head or ship them of to rot.

sorry have to disagree all convicted should be castrated and sent to a desert island to rot cause if there castrated and let back out they can still touch and submit these poor defenceless little ones to a life changeing ordeal eighter off with there head or ship them of to rot.

true but, castration (if done properly) would remove all sexual desires anyway so they would be very unlikely to reoffend.

we are too leniant of criminals in this country.

If you are convicted beyond reasonable doubt the following should apply

Rape - castrate
Burglary - chop hands off
Murder - slow painful death

etc etc etc

But what happens if you get it wrong - 'oops sorry we made a mistake, your todger is over there in that bucket somewhere'

This guy should not be alowed to live anymore.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD

Good posting from you!

Who let the News Of The World readers on this forum?

Most paedophiles aren't let into the house - they already live there. And a large proportion of mothers actually side with the man even when they find out what's going on.

The mother is irresponsible for allowing this man into her home - however, we don't know why she let him in and she obvioulsy trusted him - the people repsonsible are the people who allowed him out of prison, the people who allowed him back free onto the streets and i have said this before but any person who commits a crime like this should be castrated - all peadophiles should be castrated by law!

Poor poor child, i can feel sorrow for that child's mother 'cause i can't think that she would have ever expected this man to do what he did - yep she was irresponsible for letting him in her home but i suspect that she didn't plan on allowing this man to have contact with her child - i suspect that she will live the rest of her life with this but then so will her poor child.

When is someone going to realise that a peaedophile will always be a paedophile and will not stop what they are doing - either life imprisonment or castration is the only way that anyone can prevent sex offenders from committing crime again.

They are not fit to be allowed to live in society - i also feel that there isn't enough respect for victims and their families - its too late after the crime to make anything better - sticking em in jail for a few years, allowing them to be released earlier isn't suitable - i'd say that it is a crime to allow these people back onto the streets - when will someone realise this?

They should go now and remove every single paedophile on record from society and castrate them or imprison them - it's the oly reasonable deterent to those who go uncaught.

It makes me so angry - you can get an asbro to remove families from their homes 'cause they might have made too much noise etc but a paedophile can live wherever they want and often the community isn't aware who the paedophile is - they are allowing these people to pray on children on a daily basis.

The judicial system is to blame for their irresponsible handling of dangerous people. The person who allowed this man out of jail needs to be hung drawn and quatered, oh and sexually assaulted, then they might know how it feels and how it ruins lives.

Poor child - actually yes the mother if she knowingly knew what this man was should be held responsible, i'd like to say that her child should be removed from her care but that wouldn;t be good for that child - we can't always protect our kids, she could have let anyone into her home and something like this happen - hmmm anger is confusing me now.

babs

still even if the paedo is sick in the head he should never be allowed to mingle with society EVER again....

yes they do have a few screws loose up stairs, but they need help and rehabilitation - not off with his head....

but then who am i to talk....if it was my daughter i'd probably take the law into my own hands....it wud be worth it cuase my life would be destroyed there and then anyway.

Most paedophiles aren't let into the house - they already live there. And a large proportion of mothers actually side with the man even when they find out what's going on.

so true - i don't think that we realise the enormity of paedophilia - my husband actually defended his daughter when she abused my 2 year old - i reported her to a psycholgist and it went to social services - yes, children abuse children too - well adult paedophiles have to start somewhere - the fact that she is a child is worrying but appears to be less scary than adult paedophiles - thankfully i caught his kid before she'd managed to do too much damage and in order to keep my child home with me i have to protect my child - it would be my responsibility if anything happened again and my child who would be removed into care - not the kid who has offended.

Often paedophiles are not found guilty in court and often women protect their partners husbands when they have been caught abusing children - i know someone who did just this over and over again when the man was exposing himself to family members, eventually he got braver and went further with younger kids - still she defended him and lied in court for him - that makes her worse than him really - how can these people do this?

The problem is that this man was allowed back into society - he'd been imprisoned for the same crime and if it hadn't been this child it would have been another - the fact that he did this to someone that he knows - assuming that she did know what he was makes this man an even bigger animal.

babs

still even if the paedo is sick in the head he should never be allowed to mingle with society EVER again....

yes they do have a few screws loose up stairs, but they need help and rehabilitation - not off with his head....

but then who am i to talk....if it was my daughter i'd probably take the law into my own hands....it wud be worth it cuase my life would be destroyed there and then anyway.

Strangely, people don't take the law into their own hands - i always said that i'd kill anyone who harmed one of my kids in that way - you don't.

They shouldn't be allowed back into society though - and they ain't just sick in the head, there's more to it than that i think -

Its scary that quite often the bad patterns that lead to adults abusing children are started in childhood - often these people have abused in childhood - yet these incidents are not taken seriously - children who have abused other children should be treated early on - my skid saw a psychiatrist, not that it helped, she'd never been abused herself, but there is obviously something twisted in her head, i do feel that it must be a chemical urge in the body that causes people to behave in such a manner which is why castration would help and lets face it, to remove those physical urges can't be such a big deal. Personally i'd want to remove the whole lot of tackle and their hands but that's probably considered a bit extreme.

babs

When is someone going to realise that a peaedophile will always be a paedophile and will not stop what they are doing - either life imprisonment or castration is the only way that anyone can prevent sex offenders from committing crime again.

It's amazing how many people think that reading a tabloid newspaper makes them an expert in behavioural psychology. How many case studies have you read of ex-offenders (not just just paedophiles) being released back into the community and going on to lead normal, law-abiding lives? None I suspect even though this is probably the case with the majority of offenders, yet of course such stories don't sell newspapers.

They should go now and remove every single paedophile on record from society and castrate them or imprison them - it's the oly reasonable deterent to those who go uncaught..

You're suggesting that people should be imprisoned not because of crimes they've been convicted of but in case they should commit unspecified future crimes?

It's amazing how many people think that reading a tabloid newspaper makes them an expert in behavioural psychology. How many case studies have you read of ex-offenders (not just just paedophiles) being released back into the community and going on to lead normal, law-abiding lives? None I suspect even though this is probably the case with the majority of offenders, yet of course such stories don't sell newspapers.



You're suggesting that people should be imprisoned not because of crimes they've been convicted of but in case they should commit unspecified future crimes?

What the hell does newspapers have to do with it - i haven't read a newspaper for 25 years, how dare you assume that i get my opinions from newspapers - actually how dare you assume that i don't have a clue what i am talking about?

How many victims of abuse do you know? I know at least 100 personally. I also have a lot of knowledge on the subject

No doubt some are CURED - how many do you know who were cured and can you be really sure? No one can be sure that anyone is cured from being a paedophile, many commit many crimes before they are caught and lets face it, they are the scumbags of the earth and definately deserve no defence.

How many paedophiles do you know - what would your reaction be if they abused one of your kids? Do you know what they are capable of? Ever seen one at work? Ever seen how capable they are of taking their victims and scaring them into silence, the power that they have? I doubt that they mention this sort of stuff in the newspapers.

You ever sat in a NSPCC group of survivors and listened to the accounts given by women who were repeatedly abused as children, sometimes by more than one abuser - some by abusers who'd been to prison already then gone back and started where they left off.

I have no statistics on how many people reoffend crimes in general but its probably a fact that they do.

Nah, i don't read newspapers or watch the news too often either so my opinions are definately not based on media.

babs

Bottom line is that we should be protected from sex offenders and as women and children are the main victims of peadophiles and sex offenders - people should be imprisoned for their crimes and you know what? Some of the victims of abuse that i know would rather have been murdered than have gone through what they went through - many murderers get life, so should paedophiles.

babs

What the hell does newspapers have to do with it - i haven't read a newspaper for 25 years, how dare you assume that i get my opinions from newspapers - actually how dare you assume that i don't have a clue what i am talking about?



its ok goodlife, basil is some tosser that gets off on winding people up...ignore him.

i just cant believe that guy that rapped a 12month old baby and getting his 19yr old gf to take photos of it only got a life scentence....but with chance of parol after 6 years...i know it was a baby and HOPEFULLY it wont rememebr or indeed have any memory but theres still no excuse...that evil man should never be allowed to see the light of day again.

i just cant believe that guy that rapped a 12month old baby and getting his 19yr old gf to take photos of it only got a life scentence....but with chance of parol after 6 years...i know it was a baby and HOPEFULLY it wont rememebr or indeed have any memory but theres still no excuse...that evil man should never be allowed to see the light of day again.

Hopefully the baby won't remember, unfortunately, her parents will and their anguish will be terrible, that poor mother may be damaged for life, she will never be able to get past this, it will be with her for the rest of her life - whilst he may be out in 6 years - his girlfriend should have got life too, she is as bad as he is.

I do suspect that the baby has suffered permanent physical damage, it's just too horrific to think about without feeling upset.

Thank you Brummieade.

babs

sorry have to disagree all convicted should be castrated and sent to a desert island to rot cause if there castrated and let back out they can still touch and submit these poor defenceless little ones to a life changeing ordeal eighter off with there head or ship them of to rot.

Exactly! The problem with male castration, which almost everyone rolls out as a solution to paedophilia and rape, is that

a) it would not stop any indecent assault, (which can be just as traumatic)
and

b) if a male has reached puberty, then he is still capable of having sex, even if his testes are removed, so castration would solve nothing, in that instance.

PT

Exactly! The problem with male castration, which almost everyone rolls out as a solution to paedophilia and rape, is that

a) it would not stop any indecent assault, (which can be just as traumatic)
and

b) if a male has reached puberty, then he is still capable of having sex, even if his testes are removed, so castration would solve nothing, in that instance.

PT

I would be happy for all paedophiles to be let out as long as they are fitted with an electronically tagged chastity belt attached to handcuffs by heavy chains with large bells attached.

But what happens if you get it wrong - 'oops sorry we made a mistake, your todger is over there in that bucket somewhere'

Ever heard of this wonderful new invention called DNA testing ?

This guy should not be alowed to live anymore

These people are the lowest of the low, no second chance to abuse again, kill the ********, ******* scum.

What is more worrying is the last part of the report -
"Home Secretary John Reid asked the attorney general to appeal the case but Lord Goldsmith concluded the law had been applied correctly by the judge".

Here we have a terrible failure when the guy responsible for law and order is told nothing can be done to change the law...That is where the real failure is. I like this new guy John Reid - I like the things he is saying (albeit saying and putting into action is something totally different) - but it's the first time in ages that there seems to be some kind of overhaul of the criminal justice system and the redress in favour of victims (which is so often cited). I hope that he continues trying to change the law...and if a judge tells him he can't, he should bloody well do it anyway!

we are too leniant of criminals in this country.

If you are convicted beyond reasonable doubt the following should apply

Rape - castrate
Burglary - chop hands off
Murder - slow painful death

etc etc etc

and if you've got it wrong can we apply the penalty to you? since we clearly couldn't reverse it for the wrongly convicted.

either life imprisonment or castration is the only way that anyone can prevent sex offenders from committing crime again

very balanced. Given that someone could be on the sex offenders list for almost trivial reasons.

Ever heard of this wonderful new invention called DNA testing ?

ever heard of nothing being perfect?
Ever heard of the police planting evidence in order to obtain a conviction?
ever heard of expert scientific witnesses later being discredited (after their testimony destroys many lives and families)?

ever heard of nothing being perfect?
Ever heard of the police planting evidence in order to obtain a conviction?
ever heard of expert scientific witnesses later being discredited (after their testimony destroys many lives and families)?

Additionally, and to move away from implications of corruption, you currently cannot convict on DNA alone, although ti is incredibly accurate and sensitive this also brings problems. DNA from one person can be transported to a crime scene without them ever having been there, so other evidence is always needed. As such there is no way this could also be used to back up the use of corporal punishment.

ALso, chemical castration is temporary and relies on the individual returning for injections or taking pills. Also, it does not guaranteeably remove sex drive although it is more reliable at removing the ability to acheive erection, but this does not prevent other indecent assaults. Its not an immediate cure all.
See here for a brief overview:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemical_castration

Bottom line is that we should be protected from sex offenders and as women and children are the main victims of peadophiles and sex offenders - people should be imprisoned for their crimes and you know what? Some of the victims of abuse that i know would rather have been murdered than have gone through what they went through - many murderers get life, so should paedophiles.

babs

Yes, I've been through the *I wish I wasn't here*.... it hurts badly.
Nice post goodlife :thumbsup:

What is more worrying is the last part of the report -
"Home Secretary John Reid asked the attorney general to appeal the case but Lord Goldsmith concluded the law had been applied correctly by the judge".

Here we have a terrible failure when the guy responsible for law and order is told nothing can be done to change the law...

This isn't what happened. What he said was that the law (as it stands) and the rules about sentencing have been properly applied. They can change them and these cases are causing them to do just that. The tariff of 5/6 years also doesn't mean a sentence of 5/6 years it just means that this is the minimum time they can serve before applying for parole. They can keep them in for life if they wish, and would have plenty of evidence for doing so in the case as he re-offended after being released the first time even when he knew he would be caught.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/5216870.stm

Not much to say about this but the mother needs her head seeing to for letting him in after she knew him and what he was like, also if it was my child i would be doing prison for murder cause if i had my hands on him after what he had done, i'm sure it would be hard to figure out which piece of him goes were.

This guy should not be alowed to live anymore.

OFF WITH HIS HEAD


Yeah BUT we dont know if she knew he was a paedophile when she let him in the house...

I agree that we don't know if the mother knew about his past.

When the police investigate a crime of this sort they do not plant evidence - they are really careful - obvioulsy they want a conviction but at the end of the day it is down to the CPS if a case goes to court. DNA is a sure way to detect a current crime but in the case of crimes commited in the past, where there is no material evidence and only statements to go from then it isn't possible to set anyone up.

It is not in the police's best interest to damage the chances of getting someone to court for their crime - definately this went on in the past but not today. Yes people can lie in court but if the evidence is there - DNA evidence - this is not easy to tamper with and in most cases witness statements back up the material evidence that the police collect. The police are not allowed to get anything wrong.

I was once a witness to a house robbery, i had to go into a line up to identify the people responsible. We sat in Sheffield court all morning waiting to give evidence when it was thrown out due to a technicality during the id parade - one of the witnesses had seen the men on trial in the police station being walked into the line up room - i'm not sure that prior to this incident it had ever been raised as an issue before - but after that the policy for line ups had to change - it wasn't done on purpose just one of those things but all three men got off on that charge, the police were gutted, its not in their best interest to set anyone up. Also as said a case can only go to court if the CPS are sure that they have the right people - this si why it is so frustrating when people are found not guilty in court.

In a case that i attended the evidence was so strong, the judge had already stated that it would be a custodial sentence if the jury found this man guilty - it is really hard to get a guilty verdict on many sex cases but victims are not aware of this when they go to trail. This case was in crown court, the perp had decided not to stand in the box and so the evidence came from the victim, she was ripped to bits by the perps defence - a member of his family who is a policeman but not linked to that case was in the court as a spectator, he was able to listen to all the evidence and when it went to the second day he'd been able to tell the perps witnesses what had been said in court - very unjust, that policeman, the perps son twisted that court case - so in that case it was the police who tried to get that criminal off rather than see a guilty man go to prison - so yes people can change the way a case goes but not by tampering with the evidence that is collected pre CPS. It is poosible for the police to lie in court as it is possible for the perps to lie in court but really it isn't worth it to anyone linked to the case to damage the outcome - they need to do their best for their victims and victims are becomeing more important as time goes by - once upon a time the victim was made to look like a criminal too but things are definately far better these days. A case will not go to court unless the CPS are happy that all the evidence is correct.

As for minor offences - what starts as a minor offence quite often escalates as the perp gets more confident.

I do like the idea of a electronically tagged tackle holder, this would stop rape and other gross indecency, however, not a full preventative - maybe they should have the word peadophile written across the front of their homes - definately all residents in that area should be made aware - i do think that the severity of the crime needs to be taken into consideration but then, why should it, these people have no right to commit crimes against kids or women.

If there was a harsh penalty for sex offenders, maybe they'd think twice about commiting a crime - castration would definately dampen the sexual urgest that they have, if they have no sexual urge they'd be less inclined to commit a sexual crime but then again i think its a power thing for some perps - abusing a child is a way to harm them without outwardly harming them if you can understand that - i know one perp who simply had a hatred for women - he wanted to make little girls miserable 'cause his mother had made him miserable - he harmed them in the mosty sinister manner he could without leaving the physical marks that hitting them would - it was not his intention to get caught, he just wanted to make their lives a misery - most do act on the ssexual urge though and so castration would dampen that urge.

Plus if perps knew that they'd be castrated if they were caught, surely this would make them think again about what they get up to.

It is not alright to abuse a child, it is not acceptible, there needs to be zero tollerance and until a decent punishment comes into play they will continue, some won't stop but i think that a lot might.

Put it this way, if they brought in a life sentence for speeding drivers i am sure that we would all watch our driving speed.

You know what else is so unjust - defence lawyers for the criminals often know that they are dealing with a criminal yet they stand there and get these criminals off - how can they sleep at night - defence lawyers every day allow criminals back out onto the street.

Also whilst there si this law where the perp does not have to take the stand and have to answer to his crimes the judicial system will always fail to a degree.

If they got to court, they did it.

babs

That is their job. The justice system would not work if defence lawyers didn't try to get aquittals.

The police aren't perfect, there have been cases where evidence has been planted in the past, so pretending it will never happen in the future is foolish.

If they got to court, they did it.

babs

This is the most dangerous and short sighted assumption you could possibly make.

This is the most dangerous and short sighted assumption you could possibly make.

I know but it makes me feel better.

Thing is, a serious case does not go to court unless it is passed by CPS - each case is seriously measured for accuracy - think about all the cases that don't get to court and there are many - the cases don't get to court because something doesn't add up, either the evidence isn't enough or there is doubt that the accused is guilty - what is the point of taking a case to court where someone is not thought to be guilty? If everyone was taken to court for every crime the system wouldn't be able to cope.

The CPS are pretty sure that the accused is guilty of the crime before it can go to court, this is why we have a CPS in place.

Many many cases are heard and the criminal gets off - i know of one where the criminal was found not guilty yet he WAS guilty - so unjust.

babs

Many many cases are heard and the criminal gets off - i know of one where the criminal was found not guilty yet he WAS guilty - so unjust.
babs

But injustice can work both ways - I'm sure many people have been found guilty but been innocent.
The problem is the way the courts work - more often than not I suspect the verdict is not determined by the facts but by who's got the best lawyer.

I'm not for a moment suggesting there should be any sympathy for paedophiles, but imagine if you were accused of being one, it went to court and there was a general assumption that by simply being accused of the crime you must therefore be guilty.

That is their job. The justice system would not work if defence lawyers didn't try to get aquittals.

The police aren't perfect, there have been cases where evidence has been planted in the past, so pretending it will never happen in the future is foolish.

Yes evidence has been planted in the past, there is no doubt of that - i can't say for sure that it wouldn't happen again but what's the point in putting the wrong person in prison when someone knows that this person isn't guilty - i can't think that anyone would want an innocent man in jail.

If evidence is there why would anyone need to plant evidence? Surely the police need to have the right people in prisons and not left out there on the street to continue committing crime? It is in the best interest to charge the right people.

I also find it disgusting that people can stand in court and their past crimes are not taken into evidence - someone could have been in court 10 times for rape in the past yet get off again 'cause the past charges were not disclosed.

Actually when you look at the way it all works i am surprised that anyone is convicted of any crime -

my point about defence lawyers comes from the fact that in some cases the lawyer must know that the accused is guilty yet they still defend and allow a criminal back onto the street - how is this right? How does this protect society?

I suppose in lesser crimes i wouldn't feel so passionate - people break the law daily, i break the law, not intentionally, sometimes i drive too fast, people steal, people smoke drugs, people do this and that and often end up in court - i am talking serious crime here - how would everyone have felt f the Soham murders had been gotten off 'cause of a good lawyer? Hindley? The bloke who took this little three year old, the animal who raped the 12 month old baby girl? All big cases which were in the media - there are thousands of cases that are serious but don't make national telly - actually i think that media coverage actually helps with guilty verdicts - now i am not sure if the above cases actually pleaded guilty or not, they may have done they may have been found guilty - often a case is not covered in the media until after the case has been heard.

I also think that the police deal with so many cases of crime and they have all the things in place to know how to solve a crime - when we look at joe blogs accused of child abuse then we look at the methods that the police use and all the levels that a case goes through i'd have thought that someone landing in court is pretty much likely - in this day and age - to be guilty, they can't take a case to court without evidence and as cases can get to court without any material evidence - simply on the basis of witness statments - his word against hers and these people are actually guilty then it is the defence who turns a gulty man into an innocent man - he isn't innocent though, he's off to repeat it all over again 'cause he got away with it once, he can get away with it again.

maybe lie detectors should be used in every single case? Would this not be an effective way of helping to prove guilt? Or innocence? maybe not 'cause otherwise they'd be using it in every case - does anyone know anything about lie detectors?

But injustice can work both ways - I'm sure many people have been found guilty but been innocent.
The problem is the way the courts work - more often than not I suspect the verdict is not determined by the facts but by who's got the best lawyer.

I'm not for a moment suggesting there should be any sympathy for paedophiles, but imagine if you were accused of being one, it went to court and there was a general assumption that by simply being accused of the crime you must therefore be guilty.

I actually agree with what you are saying too - i am sure that there are men who have been accused of crimes that they havn't commited - and women too - i think in the days when police were well known for planting evidence and there is no dount that they did and there are cases where innocents have been imprisoned then found not guilty many years later with the improvement of policing techniques.

I think that i'm looking at the hear and now with police techniques - i'd never want an innocent person to be found guilty of a crime that he didn't commit - i am sure that many are accused of crimes they didn't commit, not always set up by police i might add.

I remember one of the witness statements that i was party to - won't go into who's - but the accused stated " It must be some other man" This then lead to the finger being pointed at other possible people for that crime - quite often the police will look at more than one suspect in a crime and these people are then released without charge - if it was the case that the police these days wanted to accuse the first supect that comes along then there would be thousands of innocents in jail - an investigation can go on months and years with many suspects before they find the guilty person, the process i think is very careful and very detailed and again until the case has been presented to the CPS it isn't going anywhere. I just think that today the cases of this nature going to court have only got so far because the bodies involved with the process are very accurate with their findings.

I'd say that the amount of guilty cases getting to court regardless of the outcome are far less than the actually crimes being reported. It isn't easy to always get a sex crime where children are victims into court - children are not considered reliable witnesses and therefor the crimes go unheard.

I'd say although i can not be sure - although i do know of abuse cases where the accused hasn't been tried 'cause of doubt at the victims statement, it needs a lot of good evidence and a consistent statement to get a case to court.

Personally i can't see why any child would make up a story about being abused if it isn't the case but i do know that it can happen - sad little people - thing is, children of a certain age would not be able to give a statement if they had not been party to that sort of behaviour - older kids, and i think this is the age group where false accusations are made - teenagers - might be less likely believed, where there is no more evidence than a statement. I'd also say that where children have been abused there are other tell tale signs regarding the childrens behaviour and this is where child psychiatrists come in and work with the children to obtain evidence.

Younger kids are far more easy to pray on because they aren't so likely to say anything, are easier to frighten into silence, which, is the trademark of most peadophiles, they are the ones though who are most likely to show signs of stress in such a situation - also years ago kids were easier to silence compared to today where parents are more aware and lots of kids are told by their parents to watch out for "nasty people" and the subject is more open than it once was.

Years ago women who had been raped were treated like they were making it all up, this doesn't happen so much now although they don't get an eay time and although DNA might prove that the women had sex it doesn't prove rape unless there is other evidence - all this evidence can be taken to court and no guilty verdict is heard - it would be hard to take a case to court where there wasn't adequate evidence - i think that evidence is a key factor in cases going to court, it doesn't get heard without it.

I also agree that your best lawyer statement makes sense, however, the case wouldn't be in court without the evidence - its the cases where there is no material evidence that struggle to be proven and certainly the best lawyer will sway that jury to make a decision based on nothing really - very clever people at tripping folks up.

I do know that if i was accused of a crime and i hadn't done it i'd want to stand up in court and defend myself, i'd take the stand - those criminals that don't stand have taken this advice from their lawyer, they have the choice - basically the lawyer knows that they will faulter and strip themselves up - so why can it not be the choice of the victim to refuse to take the stand?

I think that refusing to take the stand is a sure sign of guilt - i also think that it is insane that a victim be made to relive her ordeal infront of her perpetrator - the judicial system sucks.

babs

If he's been jailed for life, how on earth can he apply for parole after 5 years and 108 days :loopy: The law in this country is a joke!

If he's been jailed for life, how on earth can he apply for parole after 5 years and 108 days :loopy: The law in this country is a joke!

If i understand it correctly a life sentence doesnt mean life in prison - it means the person convicted will be 'on licence' for the rest of their life. This means that although they can be released from prison after serving a minimum time period specified by the judge, they will constantly be monitored and, should they commit a further crime, will immediately be sent straight back to prison. That's the theory anyway....

If i understand it correctly a life sentence doesnt mean life in prison - it means the person convicted will be 'on licence' for the rest of their life. This means that although they can be released from prison after serving a minimum time period specified by the judge, they will constantly be monitored and, should they commit a further crime, will immediately be sent straight back to prison. That's the theory anyway....

Hmmm still if they did commit another crime would they not have to be found guilty again or does this mean that they only have to be accused and they could actually then be innocent the second time? Does being licenced mean that they are tagged though so that the police can tell where they were at the time of the crime?

I am not quite sure how tagging and licences work - can someone explain please? I am not familiar with after crime stuff.

I also find it disgusting that people can stand in court and their past crimes are not taken into evidence - someone could have been in court 10 times for rape in the past yet get off again 'cause the past charges were not disclosed.

Big problem with disclosing crimes is that this can give a jury a predispositiona bout a person... e.g. if they have rpeviously served time for a drugs offence, and are on trial for a similar offence the jury may take this as being stronger evidence that they are guilty of the recent offence than the actual evidence presented. This is all fine with people who are guilty, but trials work on the basis of having to prove guilt, based only on the case in hand. However, I do believe that in cases where previous behaviour is important in setting the circumstances of the current case previous offences can be disclosed now... but it isn't the norm.

my point about defence lawyers comes from the fact that in some cases the lawyer must know that the accused is guilty yet they still defend and allow a criminal back onto the street - how is this right? How does this protect society?

Again our legal system works on the basis of a fair trial, and the right to defend yourself against charges brought. The sometimes large difference in experteince and skill of defence and prosecution lawyers is possibly to do with the big money which can be made as a successful defence lawyer. It must take a certain type of person to do it. However, if an offender is pleading not guilty they cannot tell their lawyer that they are guilty.

A lawyer's priciple charge is to act in the interests in of Justice, by presenting his client's (on either side) case to the best of his ability. This overides his secondary role of acting in the best interests of his client. If a defendant admits guilt but pleads not guilty the lawyer should give the case up. Again you are tried as innocent until proven guilty, and the lawyers job is to present the defent as if he is innocent.

Of course that's not to say that there are no bent lawyers either, but I'm sure the majority follow this.


maybe lie detectors should be used in every single case? Would this not be an effective way of helping to prove guilt? Or innocence? maybe not 'cause otherwise they'd be using it in every case - does anyone know anything about lie detectors?

Lie detectors are not admissable evidence in English courts (and I belive UK courts in general). TBH they just aren't reliable. Given the current discussion of paedophiles, there are some of the personality type who do not believe they have done anything wrong, who are so calculating and cold that lying does not cause them any stress, as such it is possible to fool a lie detector. In fact you or I could train ourselves to show no physical reaction to lying and pass a test.

Conversely a person telling the truth could also fail a test if answering questions about an offence was stressful enough for them. Particular questions may trigger physiological responses which are recorded as a 'lie'.

I do agree that there are aspects of our criminal justice system which need looking at, but sweeping statements about locking people up for life (are you going to pay for it?!?) or castrating them shoudl really be avoided.

I believe the justice system is not string enough to support corporal or capital punishment, however it is a darn sight better than you will find in other countries. It is not without coruption, but it is improving as processes are refined to make it harder and less profitable to do so.


Yes evidence has been planted in the past, there is no doubt of that - i can't say for sure that it wouldn't happen again but what's the point in putting the wrong person in prison when someone knows that this person isn't guilty - i can't think that anyone would want an innocent man in jail.

If evidence is there why would anyone need to plant evidence? Surely the police need to have the right people in prisons and not left out there on the street to continue committing crime? It is in the best interest to charge the right people.

This may happen purely because policing is measure on performance figures, it is better to have a detection recorded than not, and if the evidence isn't enough to get thatm then maybe it needs a boost...

I'm certainly not saying that this is common or the norm, but it could still happen. Again procedure and processes are very much rendering this sort of acitivity more and more difficult, and more risky.

the cases don't get to court because something doesn't add up, either the evidence isn't enough or there is doubt that the accused is guilty - what is the point of taking a case to court where someone is not thought to be guilty?

No, you misunderstand the system. The cps make a decision whether to prosecute based on whether they think there's a likelihood of conviction. But that certainly doesn't mean that every case that does go to court is cut and dried.
If it did then the CPS would be acting in the stead of jury, that's not and shouldn't be how the system works.

Hmmm still if they did commit another crime would they not have to be found guilty again or does this mean that they only have to be accused and they could actually then be innocent the second time? Does being licenced mean that they are tagged though so that the police can tell where they were at the time of the crime?

I am not quite sure how tagging and licences work - can someone explain please? I am not familiar with after crime stuff.

When an offender is released on licence (and this can happen for burglars, car theives, shop lifters through to sex offenders and violent criminals) they are released with a licence with certain conditions. This can exclude them from certain geographic areas, prohibit contact with certain individuals, enforce a curfew and registration of address etc. If they breach these conditions they can be recaklled to prison. Also if they commit any other offence then they can be recalled to prison. For the offender in question, he could be returned to prison for shoplifting, or any other offence.

I'm afraid I'm not sure what evidence of the offence is needed to recall them.

This licence runs to the end of the full sentece given, so he will be on licence for a full life sentence.

He will also be put on the sex offenders register, on which he will remain for life and which has other conditions which must be adhered to.

Tagging is different. I believe that it is used to ensure that repeat offenders, or people who repeatedly breach licence conditions such as curfews and exclusion zones can be monitored and checked on with out an officer or parole officer having to physically visit them.

i can't say for sure that it wouldn't happen again but what's the point in putting the wrong person in prison when someone knows that this person isn't guilty - i can't think that anyone would want an innocent man in jail.


clearly they have thought that in the past, why should the future be any different.

You seem to have a strange trust in the honesty of the police (despite past record) but a mistrust in the impartiallity of our justice system goodlife. Personally i'm inclined to feel the opposite.

what a country working life 50years & rising before you can retire
sentenced to life5_ 10 years before being released back on the streets

what a country working life 50years & rising before you can retire
sentenced to life5_ 10 years before being released back on the streets

He's not released as a free man, he is under licence for the full term of the sentence (25yrs).

I agree that in these cases life should mean life, but that wou;d require an immense over haul of the prison system... the use of licences frees up a lot of prison space... not necessarily ideal but at least they are not just released! This is a system that is under continual evaluation and change at the moment, and there do seem to be alot of changes coming in, or at least being dscussed, but these things take time.

You seem to have a strange trust in the honesty of the police (despite past record) but a mistrust in the impartiallity of our justice system goodlife. Personally i'm inclined to feel the opposite.

I suppose it depends on whether you have been the victim or the offender and what your experience of the judicial system you have had.

I very much distrust our judicial system when it comes to cases relating to sex offenders - me and many other women.

I haven't found cause yet to fault the police in such matters - can't speak for society as a whole and neither can anyone else can they?

had the dishonesty of that policeman i mentioned wasn't part of his job at that time and he was acting on behalf of his family, no himeslf - don't suppose having a father in prison for child abuse when you are a copper looks so good on yer record - still he was a tosser and a policeman so i guess that you have a point - personally the police have never done me an injustice and lets face it, when dealing with the needs of a victim versus the needs of the criminal, well i'd suppose that i'd see it that the police did all they could for the victim - i'd also say that if you are a criminal the police wouldn't really be looking out for you would they?

I'd rather believe a policeman over a criminal - would you want to believe any man who'd abused one of your children or family?

I never said that the CSP decide on whether an accused is guilty or not - they merely decipher the cases that they think are guilty - its up to the court to decide that and often a case can go to court via CPS - basically 'cause they have agreed that there is enough evidence and a good chance of getting a guilty verdict - they don't send cases to court that don't stand a chance - so it stands to reason that a case is looking very likely to get a guilty verdict if it goes to court - this doesn't always happen 'cause of course there are the lawyers and the jury and at the end of the day a jury make the decision - be that right or wrong - i'm pretty sure that's what i said before, i never said that the CPS found anyone guilty, they simply decide which cases are fit for court - worthy of court and which are not.

clearly they have thought that in the past, why should the future be any different.

The ways of gathering evidence and proving crimes are much better than they used to be - i'd say on the whole there is less chance of the wrong man being found guilty - what's the statistics on record for innocent people being imprisoned? And how many are actually being honest - of course many will plead inncocence, who wants to go to prison?

Cyclone, do you simply enjoy having a good argument/debate with me or are you trying to bully me? I don't mind either way really but would like to know how it is. I'd like to be honest and say that you intrigue me, you have some valid points but you are a challenge and i'd rather not insult you if you are only out for the debate.

babs

just debating, although I do honestly disagree with you over some of these points.

Maybe I misread it, but you said earlier that if a case has gone through the cps and been taken to court then in your eyes the defendant is already guilty.
I never said that the CSP decide on whether an accused is guilty or not
If they got to court, they did it.

babs
The CPS are pretty sure that the accused is guilty
Thankfully judges and jurors don't think like that.
I hope you never serve on a jury as you clearly wouldn't be interested in giving anyone a fair trial.

The early release of prisoners is a different issue entirely i'd have though...
You've said that you don't think defence lawyers should try so hard on behalf of their clients... A key part of the justice system of this country, that someone isn't guilty until the jury decide and that there is someone to argue against the prosecution.

I've had very few dealings with either the courts or the police, so have no personal experience to go really (apart from one incident involving another family member which is going to the IPCC now, although the policeman in question has suddenly taken a sabbatical and gone to australia apparently).
I know several current and ex policeman, and I think they do a difficult job to the best of their ability. But I also understand how the CPS and courts interact and the reason we have trial by a jury of our peers, without them we'd be living in a police state.

just debating, although I do honestly disagree with you over some of these points.

Maybe I misread it, but you said earlier that if a case has gone through the cps and been taken to court then in your eyes the defendant is already guilty.



Thankfully judges and jurors don't think like that.
I hope you never serve on a jury as you clearly wouldn't be interested in giving anyone a fair trial.

The early release of prisoners is a different issue entirely i'd have though...
You've said that you don't think defence lawyers should try so hard on behalf of their clients... A key part of the justice system of this country, that someone isn't guilty until the jury decide and that there is someone to argue against the prosecution.

I've had very few dealings with either the courts or the police, so have no personal experience to go really (apart from one incident involving another family member which is going to the IPCC now, although the policeman in question has suddenly taken a sabbatical and gone to australia apparently).
I know several current and ex policeman, and I think they do a difficult job to the best of their ability. But I also understand how the CPS and courts interact and the reason we have trial by a jury of our peers, without them we'd be living in a police state.

Good 'cause i really enjoy the debates with you! It allows me sometimes to rethink my opinions - tis good to look at many angles.

I think that it would be awful if we lived in a police state - my way of thinking though is that society needs to be safe and without finding criminals - i have to add that i have differeing views on criminals, i detest anyone who directly harms another human and have zero tolerance, my views here are related only to paedophiles and no other crime i must add. Anyway my way of thinking is that if police have done their job correctly then they wouldn't have the wrong person in the dock - it isn't just down to the police, the evidence is then passed to the CPS - surely if an accused case has got to court it is because there is evidence against that person which points to the fact that they probably have committed that crime?

What happens in court is a different story and to be honest the court scene is a very poor situation, jurers do not always see the full picture and whilst it would not be good for an innocent man to be found guilty it is disturbing that often guilty people are found not guilty - it is a fact that people are found not guilty when they are guilty - i have personal experience of this happening and have been in court in a three day trial and i can report that it was complete pants - not fair and if i could do that case all over again i can tell you that i'd make sure that i was in contempt of court and made sure that the full facts were broadcast to the jury - that way it would have been fair. A court case is very much directed by the lawyers which is guided by the judge.

Is it not a concern that guilty people are found not guilty and in the case of sex crimes on a regular basis, they are one of the hardest crimes to prove, the low conviction rate is a concern because it allows these perps back out onto the street.

And you are probably right, if i was a juror on such a case i'd probably find the person guilty, i don't know if i'd have the same view for a lesser crime and i am a fair person really so i would listen to the evidence - i was stunned after the case with the reason given for the non guilty verdict, it was pathetic really and the police were just as stunned - i did get criminal compensation - quite often victimes do get criminal compensation regardless of the court outcome, this is because they knew that he was guilty and that in many cases the perp is found not guilty, even the judge said that he knew he was guilty - i am sure that many judges could tell of cases where they knew that the perp was guilty but was found not guilty - still i would not want an innocent man to be charged with a crime he didn't do, my rational can't think that anyone would want this to happen.

I think that our law as stated by you, all men are innocent until proven guilty is wrong - people are guilty but don't like to admit it. I think that where someone has commited a crime and admit to it that they should recieve a lesser sentence - it is so easy to commit a crime in reality - i knew someone who went to prison 12 times, had her kids taken from her - she was hooked on heroin and stole to feed her habit - she was actually a lovely person with a problem, she didn't want to steal, she was honest each time she was caught and the drug ruled her life - she stole from shops, this doesn't make it right at all but you know what? If i was a juror on her case i'd not want to send her to prison, i'd want to get her some help - i can look at the reasons why someone did something - i can find no explanation for paedophiles, if they end up in court it's for a good reason.

I also think that there are instances where people have commited bad crimes but have had a good reason to do so - doesn't make it right but i can see why some people would be drawn to behaving in a way which is out of charactor, i don't think that i'd be so quick to want to see that person in prison - i think that at the end of the day each crime has its own circumstances surrounding it - women have killed husbands who have beaten them in self defence, people have accidentally killed people, people have accidentally shoplifted - my god i have walked out of tesco with stuff hung on the side of the trolley myself, have gone back in and declared that i just shoplifted - we are all capable of breaking the law and so i can see and agree with what you are saying BUT for paedophiles where there is strong evidence, enough to get it to court i do think that unless there was good evidence to say that the crime was innocent i'd have to find it guilty.

Really this is one of those debates that has so many if's and but's attached to it so it is really hard to state how we would really react unless we were in that court case and involved with the facts - its not all black and white.

So if i was a juror in the case of the man raping the year old baby, he'd be guilty, the man taking the 3 year old, he'd be guilty, any other crime against kids where there is evidence - guilty! they wouldn't be in court if there wasn't evidence against them and obviously if the evidence was iffy and there was doubt depending on that doubt was - the lawyers are always good at finding doubt - in every case lawyers try to find doubt -

This si my argument against lawyers, they must fight cases where they feel that the accused is guilty - ok if they feel the accused is innocent fight away but for people where they can see all the vidence points to guilt, how can they work to allow a guilty man - despite the law that all men are innocent until proven guilty - to go free into society? How do they sleep at night? Whilst the judicial system is as it is at present there is no wonder that there are so many criminals out and about.

I suppose that if you was to ever find yourself a victim of crime and the perp was caught and it went to court and all the evidence pointed towards the accused - and you was sat watching how the case goes, you'd be jumping when his lawyer swayed an innocent verdict, you would see how unfair the judicial system is - not saying that it is unfair in all cases 'cause this isn't the case.

maybe i am too passionate due to experience, i probably am but there is good evidence that the judicial system isn't really fair probably for the majority rather than the minority - it all depends on the type of case and the evidence given i suppose. It also depends if you are in court as the accused or the victim - i think victim being the importance - BHS having a few missing pairs of jeans ain't the same as a child who has been grossly assaulted by a peadophile.

So on that basis i can see your points of argument but i also hope that you can see mine too. So in conclusion if i was a juror i would have to be fair, just hope i am never a juror on a child abuse case.

babs

we are too leniant of criminals in this country.

If you are convicted beyond reasonable doubt the following should apply

Rape - castrate
Burglary - chop hands off
Murder - slow painful death

etc etc etc

What a load of b******s!

How can any anyone have any faith in the so called british justice system? :nono:

There are so many people who are convicted of serious crimes and subsequently found to be totally innocent, that any form of penalty involving death or mutilation is absolutely unacceptable. :loopy: