Should there always be a right to a trial?
Poll: Should there always be a right to a trial?
Total Members Polled: 55
Discussion
I am asking the question because of the absurdity that is the trial of the man who attempted to kill Salman Rushdie. (The trial is due to start shortly).
I read a newspaper article and they used “alleged” but it isn’t alleged. He attacked Rushdie in public. There were hundreds of witnesses, it was filmed and he was caught and detained on the spot holding the knife.
On the one side you could argue that everyone deserves their day in court…but running a large murder trial isn’t free. It costs a lot of money and ties up court time. There is also the potential psychological impact on the victim of having to face their attacker in court and relive the event.
In cases such as this where there is no doubt about guilt, would another process be more appropriate?
I read a newspaper article and they used “alleged” but it isn’t alleged. He attacked Rushdie in public. There were hundreds of witnesses, it was filmed and he was caught and detained on the spot holding the knife.
On the one side you could argue that everyone deserves their day in court…but running a large murder trial isn’t free. It costs a lot of money and ties up court time. There is also the potential psychological impact on the victim of having to face their attacker in court and relive the event.
In cases such as this where there is no doubt about guilt, would another process be more appropriate?
Yes, even if it's obvious we still have to uphold a high standard.
Its very easy to be accused of something and if a robust process is not followed innocents can and do end up in prison.
Heck, the current potential mess surrounding Lucy letby is happening despite our well established legal system.
Imagine what would happen if we just chucked folk in prison because lots of people "saw them do it".
Its very easy to be accused of something and if a robust process is not followed innocents can and do end up in prison.
Heck, the current potential mess surrounding Lucy letby is happening despite our well established legal system.
Imagine what would happen if we just chucked folk in prison because lots of people "saw them do it".
Absolutely.
The public nature of trials is quite important. It's not just democracy that dies behind closed doors.
In extremis it allows jury nullification.
But in less extreme circumstances we must consider that the police, the CPS, and the legal system are not infallible. Or even that trustworthy really.
The public nature of trials is quite important. It's not just democracy that dies behind closed doors.
In extremis it allows jury nullification.
But in less extreme circumstances we must consider that the police, the CPS, and the legal system are not infallible. Or even that trustworthy really.
Yes.
However, as the current system, there should be consideration on sentencing for non serious crimes for pleading guilty.
The ones that are really annoying are the ones like the Southport murderer who change their plea to guilty at the last minute knowing that everything has been put in place for the trial (witnesses, jury, barristers etc).
However, as the current system, there should be consideration on sentencing for non serious crimes for pleading guilty.
The ones that are really annoying are the ones like the Southport murderer who change their plea to guilty at the last minute knowing that everything has been put in place for the trial (witnesses, jury, barristers etc).
Skeptisk said:
I am asking the question because of the absurdity that is the trial of the man who attempted to kill Salman Rushdie. (The trial is due to start shortly).
I read a newspaper article and they used “alleged” but it isn’t alleged. He attacked Rushdie in public. There were hundreds of witnesses, it was filmed and he was caught and detained on the spot holding the knife.
On the one side you could argue that everyone deserves their day in court…but running a large murder trial isn’t free. It costs a lot of money and ties up court time. There is also the potential psychological impact on the victim of having to face their attacker in court and relive the event.
In cases such as this where there is no doubt about guilt, would another process be more appropriate?
There should be a trial,but it can be quick.I read a newspaper article and they used “alleged” but it isn’t alleged. He attacked Rushdie in public. There were hundreds of witnesses, it was filmed and he was caught and detained on the spot holding the knife.
On the one side you could argue that everyone deserves their day in court…but running a large murder trial isn’t free. It costs a lot of money and ties up court time. There is also the potential psychological impact on the victim of having to face their attacker in court and relive the event.
In cases such as this where there is no doubt about guilt, would another process be more appropriate?
grumbledoak said:
Absolutely.
The public nature of trials is quite important. It's not just democracy that dies behind closed doors.
In extremis it allows jury nullification.
But in less extreme circumstances we must consider that the police, the CPS, and the legal system are not infallible. Or even that trustworthy really.
^The public nature of trials is quite important. It's not just democracy that dies behind closed doors.
In extremis it allows jury nullification.
But in less extreme circumstances we must consider that the police, the CPS, and the legal system are not infallible. Or even that trustworthy really.
That.
I agree with the OP that it’s a cut & dried case with unnecessary cost. But if you weigh that cost against maintaining a just legal system then it’s irrelevant.
Read the £10m footpath thread if you would like an example of unnecessary expenditure.
Slow.Patrol said:
Yes.
However, as the current system, there should be consideration on sentencing for non serious crimes for pleading guilty.
The ones that are really annoying are the ones like the Southport murderer who change their plea to guilty at the last minute knowing that everything has been put in place for the trial (witnesses, jury, barristers etc).
As I understand it, any “discount” for a guilty plea reduces if the plea is made late. So there is a mitigation of sorts against scumbags taking the p*ss. That being said, there will always be cases where an individual is very obviously going to die behind bars, and so has nothing to lose from messing about for their own entertainment. However, as the current system, there should be consideration on sentencing for non serious crimes for pleading guilty.
The ones that are really annoying are the ones like the Southport murderer who change their plea to guilty at the last minute knowing that everything has been put in place for the trial (witnesses, jury, barristers etc).
As for trial by jury, a while ago the Scots were attempting to launch a pilot scheme where those accused of rape would have a trial by judge, no jury. Supposedly this was to “help improve conviction rates” - i.e, “We don’t like it when pesky jurys find someone innocent, grrr”. Google tells us that “ The Scottish government has scrapped a pilot of juryless trials for rape cases, which aimed to tackle endemic low conviction rates for sexual assault prosecution, after a backlash from the highest levels of the legal profession. “ That should tell us all we need to know about whether a proper trial should always be an option (the answer is yes).
Edited by Southerner on Monday 3rd February 13:32
Skeptisk said:
I am asking the question because of the absurdity that is the trial of the man who attempted to kill Salman Rushdie. (The trial is due to start shortly).
I read a newspaper article and they used “alleged” but it isn’t alleged. He attacked Rushdie in public. There were hundreds of witnesses, it was filmed and he was caught and detained on the spot holding the knife.
On the one side you could argue that everyone deserves their day in court…but running a large murder trial isn’t free. It costs a lot of money and ties up court time. There is also the potential psychological impact on the victim of having to face their attacker in court and relive the event.
In cases such as this where there is no doubt about guilt, would another process be more appropriate?
Of course there should be a right to trial. It's mystifying to suggest that there shouldn't be.I read a newspaper article and they used “alleged” but it isn’t alleged. He attacked Rushdie in public. There were hundreds of witnesses, it was filmed and he was caught and detained on the spot holding the knife.
On the one side you could argue that everyone deserves their day in court…but running a large murder trial isn’t free. It costs a lot of money and ties up court time. There is also the potential psychological impact on the victim of having to face their attacker in court and relive the event.
In cases such as this where there is no doubt about guilt, would another process be more appropriate?
For one thing, there's mitigation.
For example - "Mr Smith stabbed his wife to death in cold blood, with 50 witnesses" is very different to "Mr Smith stabbed his abusive wife to death, who had just slaughtered his children, with 50 witnesses"
Trials aren't just about what events happened, they are about why they happened.
ChevronB19 said:
Can’t believe OP even thought this merited a poll. It’s a fundamental right.
Not if you’re accused of certain things in Scotland, according to some of their leaders it seems! Thankfully some equally important people disagreed. But it’s deeply worrying that the possibility ever got that far.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff