quote:

Originally posted by Roxi:
I think any criminal thats guilty shouldnt get a new identity. And if they get let out of prison they should face up to what they did and face the consequences of their actions and if they get found and attacked or killed by the british public then its their fault they end up dead for the crimes they did

The poll is about people being named when they are arrested before trial before they ever found guilty (or not guilty)

quote:

Originally posted by Roxi:
I think any criminal thats guilty shouldnt get a new identity. And if they get let out of prison they should face up to what they did and face the consequences of their actions and if they get found and attacked or killed by the british public then its their fault they end up dead for the crimes they did

And will the British Public be bound by criminal law for attacking and maybe killing?

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
It's the reporting in papers like the Sun that get me. For instance, if someone is charged with, say, shoplifting, the paper reports the case like this: Smith, an unmarried mother with 4 kids from different fathers who has never worked, appeared in court today [...].

thats cause the "scum" and "papers" like it TELL the cretins who read them HOW to think,
I want a news paper to report the facts of the case and leave the judging and name calling to the judges,

quote:

Originally posted by Roxi:
I think any criminal thats guilty shouldnt get a new identity. And if they get let out of prison they should face up to what they did and face the consequences of their actions and if they get found and attacked or killed by the british public then its their fault they end up dead for the crimes they did

Interesting view. Presumably, the assaulters or murderers get to appear in court if they're found too? And if convicted then they're sentenced to an especially harsh sentence for undermining the justice system with their vigilante-ism?

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
It's the reporting in papers like the Sun that get me. For instance, if someone is charged with, say, shoplifting, the paper reports the case like this: Smith, an unmarried mother with 4 kids from different fathers who has never worked, appeared in court today [...].

The Sun and Mail are total misogynists anyway! Women are either old dried up slags, or young glamorous slags who have loose morals...But there you go, that's those damn righties for you!!!1111

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:

quote:

Originally posted by Roxi:
I think any criminal thats guilty shouldnt get a new identity. And if they get let out of prison they should face up to what they did and face the consequences of their actions and if they get found and attacked or killed by the british public then its their fault they end up dead for the crimes they did

The poll is about people being named when they are arrested before trial before they ever found guilty (or not guilty)

I don't mind if anyone wants to broaden the debate Leccy (though you're right hun )
Roxi, that throws up more problems/questions though. If someone is released from prison - or given a non custodial sentence - and the public feel that is wrong then is it ok for the public to take the law into their own hands?

I don't know.

Yesterday and earlier today I was all for naming the accused to allow any other victims to come forward.

After reading through the threads here today...I'm not so sure it's the right thing.

I will vote later Veggie after giving it more thought.

quote:

Originally posted by Roxi:
I think any criminal thats guilty shouldnt get a new identity. And if they get let out of prison they should face up to what they did and face the consequences of their actions and if they get found and attacked or killed by the british public then its their fault they end up dead for the crimes they did

WOW!! and what IF 1/they were wrongly convicted...it happens ALL the time,
and 2/ why bother with the prison in the first place? why not just throw them to the mob?

and what "crimes" are we talking about?....who decides which crime deserves being battered to death by a mob...or maybe just crippling for life...or...how about just blinding?

all I say is THANK GOD we have some sort of justice system,

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

The Sun and Mail are total misogynists anyway! Women are either old dried up slags, or young glamorous slags who have loose morals...But there you go, that's those damn righties for you!!!1111

Well that's coz none of us can hope to emulate their sainted Hilda of Grantham

I'm all for not naming anyone who has not got a conviction.I dont think it makes tuppence worth of difference to therumour mill.
I know a secondary school colleague whos life was shattered when he was wrongly accused by a student of assault and named in the local paper as a sex offender.The case was dropped before it went to court when the girl confessed.Not before the family had been hounded out of the area.The fact he was named has made people more likely to accept 'no smoke without fire'.I think had he remained anonymous,there would have been tittle tattle but little else.I honestly thing there are some people with the mentality 'If the paper says so,they're guilty'.This trial by media is,franky,alarming.It produces knee jerk reactions and undermines the judicial system we have in place

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

The Sun and Mail are total misogynists anyway! Women are either old dried up slags, or young glamorous slags who have loose morals...But there you go, that's those damn righties for you!!!1111

Well that's coz none of us can hope to emulate their sainted Hilda of Grantham

Counting down the days Veggeroo, counting down the days! It will be open house at the Del Beadle bedsit when she carks it

Sorry to derail this slightly but...

Z beats Y up...serves time...gets out...so Y's family beats Z for revenge...so then is it ok if Z's family in return go on to beat Y's family?

Just so we're clear here, Z and Y and their respective families are locked in perpetual battle. Cool

Sorry Veggie...for moving off topic.

quote:

Originally posted by *Pesky-Pixie*:
I don't know.

Yesterday and earlier today I was all for naming the accused to allow any other victims to come forward.

After reading through the threads here today...I'm not so sure it's the right thing.

I will vote later Veggie after giving it more thought.

Thanks hun, as I said I voted yes to anonymity but it is a really complex issue particularly with really emotive crimes.

Da vet dat poked his fingefs up my bum advertises

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

The Sun and Mail are total misogynists anyway! Women are either old dried up slags, or young glamorous slags who have loose morals...But there you go, that's those damn righties for you!!!1111

Well that's coz none of us can hope to emulate their sainted Hilda of Grantham

Counting down the days Veggeroo, counting down the days! It will be open house at the Del Beadle bedsit when she carks it

The Bollys on ice here my love let me tell you. I polish the tap shoes weekly
(I'm going to get in trouble for saying that)
*ducks for cover*

It makes you think of the Salem witch trials - an accusation of witchcraft was almost always a death sentence. No innocent until proven guilty going on there.

What is so horrendous about some of these cases is the way people's families and possessions are targeted - that is just really wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by Aubrey D Dawg:
Da vet dat poked his fingefs up my bum advertises

Awww

our old cat used to start purring when the vet wielded the thermometer

*puts philosophy hat on again*

It's the social contract, innit. We give up our right to administer natural justice to the state who administers it impartially and fairly on our behalf. In return, the state protects and enforces our right to life, and right to property, and other things like that. That way, the weak and the strong alike can spend time pursuing more civilised goals and society benefits as a whole. If people decide to administer their own justice after the state has done so then we end up in an anarchic situation. Those people need to be more severely punished to maintain everyone's confidence in law and order.

quote:

Originally posted by old hippy guy:

WOW!! and what IF 1/they were wrongly convicted...it happens ALL the time,
and 2/ why bother with the prison in the first place? why not just throw them to the mob?

heck, the way some have been on here today why even bother with a trial let alone jail, they are accused and that seems to be more than enough to start some people organising the lynch party.

quote:

Originally posted by Ms Golightly:
It makes you think of the Salem witch trials - an accusation of witchcraft was almost always a death sentence. No innocent until proven guilty going on there.

What is so horrendous about some of these cases is the way people's families and possessions are targeted - that is just really wrong.

I think we should bring all the witch trials back, if you burn and survive you are defo a witch, but if you burn and die, it was totally a terrible mistake and you were like innocent all along....

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
*puts philosophy hat on again*

It's the social contract, innit. We give up our right to administer natural justice to the state who administers it impartially and fairly on our behalf. In return, the state protects and enforces our right to life, and right to property, and other things like that. That way, the weak and the strong alike can spend time pursuing more civilised goals and society benefits as a whole. If people decide to administer their own justice after the state has done so then we end up in an anarchic situation. Those people need to be more severely punished to maintain everyone's confidence in law and order.

Succinctly put. And therin lies the rub. In the majority of cases, the sentences do not fit the crime and 'the people' feel cheated. The whipped-up media frenzy is another story.

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Sorry to derail this slightly but...

Z beats Y up...serves time...gets out...so Y's family beats Z for revenge...so then is it ok if Z's family in return go on to beat Y's family?

Just so we're clear here, Z and Y and their respective families are locked in perpetual battle. Cool

Sorry Veggie...for moving off topic.

No need to apologise hun, it's all good.
See your scenario is like those feuding families in the USA, at some stage you have to say enough is enough.
We had a case on my estate about 20 years ago. This woman was having an affair and the boyfriend killed her husband, Everyone knew he had done it, he boasted about it in the pub fgs, including the police, but he got off in court.
He was a real piece of work, moved in with the woman and her kids, within a year she had lost her kids as he had been beating them, you never saw her but she had black eyes or strangle marks etc.
About 2 years later he was killed. I think it was pretty obvious that the murdered husbands family had done it.
The police couldn't get anyone at all to co-operate with the investigation, wasn't anyone sheddding a tear over his demise.
Which is shameful really but also human nature

This is a tricky one, Veggie. I have been having an arguement with myself for the last twenty minutes and I have finally decided to vote yes for anonymity until someone is actually convicted.

There are valid reasons for both (naming/picturing AND for anonymity), I err on the side of naming/picturing.

You can’t be a proponent of anonymity on the grounds of fairness if you think it should only apply to certain defendants – it would have to be across the board.

Overall I think there is too much focus on defendants’ rights and not enough focus on justice for victims, conviction rates would suggest that victims are being failed.

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

I think we should bring all the witch trials back, if you burn and survive you are defo a witch, but if you burn and die, it was totally a terrible mistake and you were like innocent all along....

All that burning Will no one think of the environment

We should just see if they weigh the same as a duck innit?
Sorted

quote:

Originally posted by Ms Golightly:

quote:

Originally posted by Daniel J*:
*puts philosophy hat on again*

It's the social contract, innit. We give up our right to administer natural justice to the state who administers it impartially and fairly on our behalf. In return, the state protects and enforces our right to life, and right to property, and other things like that. That way, the weak and the strong alike can spend time pursuing more civilised goals and society benefits as a whole. If people decide to administer their own justice after the state has done so then we end up in an anarchic situation. Those people need to be more severely punished to maintain everyone's confidence in law and order.

Succinctly put. And therin lies the rub. In the majority of cases, the sentences do not fit the crime and 'the people' feel cheated. The whipped-up media frenzy is another story.

Is that really the case, though? After the Baby P trial, there was loads of shouting about the judge being incompetent and clueless. Bigdaddyostrich found a URL with the full judgement including detailed reasons and expectations and there were quite a few people saying: Oh I see! Most of the time, people don't get to see that.

Also, there are people here on this forum who want everyone thrown into prison who commit crimes and are profoundly unhappy with non-custodial sentences. Yet, reoffending rates for a number of crimes are much higher for people given custodials than for other types of punishment. It might sound a bit snotty but I don't believe all that many people understand the issues of crime and deviance very well. I include myself in that, to some extent.

I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

Blimey Veggie, that case where you live!

abstain,

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.


Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

In addition, I think one of her other kids was raped by the man so in naming her they were naming a child rape victim.

quote:

Originally posted by JasmineJ:
Overall I think there is too much focus on defendants’ rights and not enough focus on justice for victims, conviction rates would suggest that victims are being failed.

A few weeks back, there was a story about the conviction rates for rape and one of the government ministers, I think, was trying to put in measures to increase it. It was quite an interesting story if you went back to the primary data, looked at it closely, and sought an alternative explanation. It wasn't as obvious as it seemed.

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Blimey Veggie, that case where you live!

yeah Lecs, it was the first murder here on the estate since I'd lived here - must be over 20 years ago thinking about it.
We've had several more murders here since, guess it goes with the territory

quote:

Originally posted by strike:
abstain,

Hi hun, just realised I forgot to answer your question about Hope Powell - sorry.
I don't actually know the answer to the ladies salaries but will try to find out.
I know that Arsenal Ladies are the best paid because two of ours who went to Chelsea last season took a pay cut.
And I know that kelly Smith is being paid 30k a week in the States but I'm not sure if that is sterling or $.
Sorry to go OT everyone

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

I think that's the same problem in this case. This woman has 2 teenage daughters who had to go into hiding already. These children must be shell shocked about the allegations against their mother. Isn't that bad enough without depriving them of their home and some sort of security.

quote:

Originally posted by Veggieburger:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.


Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

In addition, I think one of her other kids was raped by the man so in naming her they were naming a child rape victim.

Exactly! But the masses feel that they need to know everything about everyone at all times.

It makes me feel sick that I work in social care, yet I am getting accused on a daily basis of failing the people that I have a duty of care over.

Ennis, I remember a massive argument on Pobitch over that! (edited to add re.naming Baby P's Mother on the internet)
As soon as the mods were taking her name down muppets were posting it back up.

The mods (rightly) were trying to say...please, think of the other kids, think about the trial we WANT them convicted, don't jeopardise it...don't do anything that could have repercussions on the other kids.

The idiots that would NOT stop thought they were helping? How? I know they were horrified and wanted people to know who was responsible, I perfectly understand the very human reaction...but if they REALLY cared so much about the other kids and seeing justice done they would have stopped.

*Sometimes I think it's about being seen to be the loudest to complain and hand wring and be "part of" a story...and not from any real sense of wanting to see justice done.

*I know, the vast majority mean well, I'm not tarring everyone and not picking on anyone here.

quote:

Originally posted by cologne1:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

I think that's the same problem in this case. This woman has 2 teenage daughters who had to go into hiding already. These children must be shell shocked about the allegations against their mother. Isn't that bad enough without depriving them of their home and some sort of security.

I figure that the quacking masses figure that her kids are guilty because they had the misfortune to be born of someone who is an accused paedo.

It really sickens me

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:

quote:

Originally posted by cologne1:

quote:

Originally posted by Ennis Del Beadle:
I think also we should look at the internet as a problem in this case. As I recalll in the Baby P case there were people on Facebook naming the mother. The reason the mothers identity was kept secret was not for her protection, but for the protection of her other children.

Yet there were the quacking masses who were so quick to name and shame her, didn't stop to consider the privacy of her other kids.

Typical of people who feel they have the right to know everything about everyone else...Viva the internet age

I think that's the same problem in this case. This woman has 2 teenage daughters who had to go into hiding already. These children must be shell shocked about the allegations against their mother. Isn't that bad enough without depriving them of their home and some sort of security.

I figure that the quacking masses figure that her kids are guilty because they had the misfortune to be born of someone who is an accused paedo.

It really sickens me

It's a local case for me Ennis and I think listening to ppl, you are right in your thinking.

quote:

Originally posted by electric6:
Ennis, I remember a massive argument on Pobitch over that! (edited to add re.naming Baby P's Mother on the internet)
As soon as the mods were taking her name down muppets were posting it back up.

The mods (rightly) were trying to say...please, think of the other kids, think about the trial we WANT them convicted, don't jeopardise it...don't do anything that could have repercussions on the other kids.

The idiots that would NOT stop thought they were helping? How? I know they were horrified and wanted people to know who was responsible, I perfectly understand the very human reaction...but if they REALLY cared so much about the other kids and seeing justice done they would have stopped.

*Sometimes I think it's about being seen to be the loudest to complain and hand wring and be "part of" a story...and not from any real sense of wanting to see justice done.

*I know, the vast majority mean well, I'm not tarring everyone and not picking on anyone here.

Lecs you are completely correct though. It seems if you do not complain loudly enough, you are condoning the actions, which is obviously bullshit to anyone with an ounce of sense...

But there you go

[QUOTE} Yet, reoffending rates for a number of crimes are much higher for people given custodials than for other types of punishment. It might sound a bit snotty but I don't believe all that many people understand the issues of crime and deviance very well. I include myself in that, to some extent. [QUOTE]

I suppose that is where the media frenzy plays its part - they sensationalise certain stories that we all (to differing degrees) get caught up in, and then there is an expectation that the only acceptable sentence involves throwing away the key.

There is massive inconsistency in sentencing and as that is the part that people get to hear about (through the media) many feel dissatisfied.

Slightly off at a tangent, but stories about prisoners like Ian Huntley having an x-box (or something!) stirs up outrage - and what does it matter? We all know prisoners aren't breaking rocks in a suit with arrows on, but every x-box type story receives the same response. And without the media we wouldn't even know, or ever think about it.

The overall feeling of unrest can (IMO) be boiled down to 'it's not fair' - and it isn't. Bad things happen to good people and there seems to be little or no consequences to the perpetrator.

I take your point about re-offending rates - I read an article somewhere a few months ago about a unit for sex offenders where they all have access to regular counselling, art, discussion groups etc as part of their rehabilitation. The re-offending rate is exceptionally low - so it works. But, the GBP can't reconcile these 'monsters' receiving such luxuries, even though it benefits society as a whole. Mainly because no such help and rehabilitation is on offer for the victim.

There are no easy answers and I feel I have veered wildly off course!