Customer Discussions > politics discussion forum

Steven Lawrence Murder


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 76-100 of 119 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 15:13:48 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Caractacus- I presume you are not a member of the BNP?

I will take your post on trust that this is a genuine concern of yours.

The original investigation was flawed ( as everyone even plod admit). The double jeopardy "safeguard" is also a flaw, if someone gets off becuase of jury tampeing, evidence being "misplaced" or badly presented, someone can walk free. Then they are free to carry on. If new evidence tecniques, or new evidence comes to light that casts a doubt on the original trial- it is both right and proper that it should be heard in court.

The idea that the government are going to keep trying somone repeatedly is frankly stupid.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 15:16:28 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Loius- do you have evidence that there is new evidence for this murdered white policewomans case?

If you think any member of the police service would not try their utmost to nail a police killer then you are mad. They would move heaven and earth to nail the perpetrator, sometimes it just cannot be done.

The biggest problem is witness intimidation by crime families, so witnesses are too scared to speak.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 15:17:36 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Spin - you really are full of sh*t.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 15:19:38 GMT
C. A. Small says:
Dianne Abbott is one of the worst things to happen to politics- she is a rascist. Had a white person made similar comments in the opposite direction they would have had to resign- and quite rightly.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 15:21:41 GMT
C. A. Small says:
WPC Yvonne Fletcher was a terrible case. The problem was diplomatic immunity- one of the thorniest problems both for the Met and government. Do not blame the police. It is international law that is flawed.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 16:42:50 GMT
Spin says:
CA: I am not aware of any sociological or political theory that refutes the idea that "policing" is determined by government dictates by using the term "s**t".

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 17:19:58 GMT
C. A. Small says:
I am not aware of why you keep spouting pretentious cobblers coupled with paranoid delusions about policing.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 17:42:26 GMT
Spin says:
CA: Do not assume, like some, that ones thought is individually unique. We all derive our conclusions from prior theories. If you consider my comment to be "cobblers" then you are also saying a vast amount of academic theories are cobblers as well. As for the subject, why do you believe that policing is an independent system in the social order? If it were independent, it could do as it wishes (as it did in the past).

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jan 2012 20:18:57 GMT
"If new evidence tecniques, or new evidence comes to light that casts a doubt on the original trial- it is both right and proper that it should be heard in court"

This was still possible with Double Jeopardy in place. It's in my last post to do with the exceptions to the Double Jeopardy law.

In reply to an earlier post on 12 Jan 2012 06:48:42 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2012 06:49:28 GMT
Molly Brown says:
I agree with you WAE, but there is a sometimes a thin line possibly between justice being properly served, and harassment. There have been cases where the Police have decided that a suspect they choose is guilty and they can make that person's life hell. As was shown recently at the Leveson Inquiry. The Krays and Al Capone being two obvious cases where the double jeopardy law was not appropriate.

Posted on 12 Jan 2012 09:30:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 12 Jan 2012 10:15:01 GMT
Caractacus says:
Mr Small can presume whatever he likes about the people who post comments, but those presumptions, and whether he trusts peoples' motives or not, are irrelevant to the discussion - the points being made are all that need to be considered.

However, this aspect to his post (plus his liking for insults) may indicate that he can be swayed from the theoretical points being made, by background noise and short term emotional instincts and considerations - as do his points on double jeopardy.

I'm sure the highly educated, serious minded and experienced people (lawyers, constitutional experts, monarchs, politicians etc) who write and form constitutions are aware of the drawbacks to not allowing double jeopardy, as, as you say, guilty people can occassionally escape punishment, but the reason they have this rule - and which has stood for almost a thousand years and is in place in most other advanced countries - is that it does form an important protection against an oppresssive state, and an oppressive political party that gains power and makes its decisions based upon short term visceral hatreds of its opponents and people it detests (believing arrogantly that it is always 'right' and that its wants are more important than centuries old personal and civil liberty safeguards.

The very reason we had the double jeopardy rule, despite its flaws, is to protect people against the state trying them in court again and again (even if 'only' twice, though not necessarily) for the same offence until it gets the result it wants (and even if it doesn't get the result it wants, it is still able to constantly harrass and oppress someone in this manner - sometimes decades later).

I do hope Mr Small is never accused of a crime by the police/state (maybe a political party he does not like will one day be in power and take a dislike to him and his views) because even if he is innocent and is found to be so in court, he will not be able to rest at ease afterwards because the police can then / now come back whenever they like, having rustled up some 'new evidence' from somewhere, and try him again for the same crime.

Then he may appreciate why serious constitutionalists set great store by the double jeopardy rule, despite its flaws.

The only reason this protection was removed was because New Labour politicians wanted to re-prosecute the Lawrence suspects - so it is not stupid at all to believe that a government, of whatever makeup (maybe a facist party will one day come to power?), could keep trying someone repeatly (twice is still a repeat) now that this option is open to them.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:11:33 GMT
These racist killers hoped to evade justice throughout their adult lives - they were defended in court as adults, tried as adults and sentenced as adults. They have showed no remorse for their crime - therefore, they should receive adult sentences. They have the luxury of meals provided, warm accomodation, access to healthcare and other human rights privileges. What did they do to be awarded this? They vented their bigoted racist views and anger towards an innocent person, stabbed him fatally and left him to die by a roadside. A prison term clearly does not 'pay' for the crime - it is not justice. True compensation is 'a life for a life' - if you take someone's life unlawfully then you must pay the equivalent price with your own. This is true justice and the cost of keeping murderers for years in the comfort of prisons shouldn't be a burden on taxpayers. Murderers shouldn't benefit financially, neither should they cost us to be kept alive. The state should have the power to exact the due punishment for extreme crimes and uphold the true value of innocent lives. The death sentence for murderers is the only option that truly values and holds in esteem the right to life of an innocent individual.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:15:55 GMT
Well pointed out! These men didn't have a change of heart over their crime - hence, they are also guilty as adults. As responsible adults they were not concerned about justice or the suffering of the Lawrence family and all those concerned.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:18:40 GMT
That is a good observation - in both cases it appears to be 'might is right' as with the case of most wars .. and bullies.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:23:13 GMT
I think the surveillance video showing the attitude of these 'youth' is quite disturbing. Do we want people like this in society? In my view they should be in prison simply for this. Fantasies they may have been, however, the intention was clear that given the right circumstances these would be acted out for real.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:28:49 GMT
Any member of this group should serve the same prison sentences by being accomplices, whether they shouted abuse or helped with the attack - the fact is no-one tried to prevent the attack or show concern for the victim. They are all collectively culpable and equally responsible through association.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:28:50 GMT
Spin says:
Bert; There is a question that niggles at my thought on this subject: Do I, at this point in my life, want to be held responsible for the foolish, vile and ignorant things I got up to in my youth? Is regret something to be ignored? Of course, I never commited a crime in my youth, but I did some pretty stupid things. Some of which I very much regret (and most of which, I now realise, had a detrimental effect on a person). But, on reflection, I must say that Lawrences kilers, even now, display no regret. That is the main reason I do not apply my usual moral consideration to them. If a person will not learn from thier mistake, there is no point in teaching them, is there?

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jan 2012 21:30:05 GMT
I agree - I just posted a comment on this particular viewpoint.

Posted on 16 Jan 2012 12:50:45 GMT
Last edited by the author on 16 Jan 2012 12:53:47 GMT
Caractacus says:
it's hardly surprising they have 'showed no remorse' or regret or 'change of heart' etc for their crime, as they deny having done it!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jan 2012 20:40:00 GMT
Spin says:
Caractacus: One cannot plead guilty to a crime if one does not consider ones actions to be a "crime".

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2012 10:06:09 GMT
Last edited by the author on 17 Jan 2012 10:32:03 GMT
Caractacus says:
Mr Spin - firstly your comment is not correct - a crime is a crime not according to whether the defendant 'believes' it to be a crime or not - it simply is or it isn't, according to the law. Also, a defendant could still plead guilty to a crime even if he initially believed his action not to be a crime, if he was advised by legal experts that it was. i.e. I might have thought that it was fine to build a website with links on it to illegal file sharing websites, so long as I do not build a file sharing website myself, but if my lawyer later advises my action was a crime, and even if I thought my action justifiable, I might still think that pleading guilty is the best thing to do in the circumstances.

Secondly - your comment is irrelevant because the defendants in this case didn't plead 'not guity' because they thought Mr Lawrence's murder was not a 'crime', or a justifiable action, - they did so because they said it wasn't themselves who did it.

It appears as if you would like to attribute such beliefs - that killing Mr Lawrence was not legally a crime or that it was a justifiable crime - to these two men, despite they themselves not having made such comments, or used such a defence in their trial.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2012 11:57:00 GMT
C. A. Small says:
caractacus- also murdering swine can be assured that even if they knobble a jury, even if their expensive brief gets them off on a technicality, they must still fear the knock on the door. which might just make some of the career criminals think twice.

In reply to an earlier post on 17 Jan 2012 18:38:08 GMT
Spin says:
Caracatus: Homosexuality used to be a "crime" and beating schoolchildren used to be legal. remember? Your contention that an action is either a crime or it is not relies solely on what is accepted as being a crime. If a person does not consider his action to be a crime, he will not consider himself "guilty". As for the accused not stating this premise in their court hearing, these men do not have the intelligence to consider such things. They are what they are, moral debate does not enter their minds. And thier lawyers cannot use that argument since it is to admit thier guilt, under law, and deride thier intelligence ("Your Honour, my client pleads "not guilty" because he does not consider his actions to be a crime". Not much of a defense, is it? If anything it adds to the case against him). Any person who gets his kicks by enacting killings in his flat with his mates cannot be said to know his behaviour is abnormal and cannot be said to consider his killing of an innocent youth to be a crime.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2012 11:14:56 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jan 2012 11:19:26 GMT
Caractacus says:
Mr spin's latest adddition is possibly the most twisted and convoluted post on the thread - set up a false premise and then gleefully knock it down - make assumptions about others based upon your own views, take it for granted that those assumptions are actually facts, and then make further assumptions based on those established 'facts' - twisting and turning logic as you go - time for me to exit the discussion I think - thanks all.

Posted on 18 Jan 2012 15:30:47 GMT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jan 2012 15:32:44 GMT
The Truth says:
Spin:
"Any person who gets his kicks by enacting killings in his flat with his mates cannot be said to know his behaviour is abnormal and cannot be said to consider his killing of an innocent youth to be a crime."

Rubbish - more nonsense from you... it really is everywhere in these forums isn't it.

Again, without going through all your posts and pulling them apart, I'll just address this last point and say:

Growing up, when me and my mates smoked weed in each others' bedrooms, we still knew it was a crime. And had we been caught and arrested by plod, we would have known why.

And whilst I'm here....

"Your contention that an action is either a crime or it is not relies solely on what is accepted as being a crime. If a person does not consider his action to be a crime, he will not consider himself "guilty"."

The first part of your statement here - unbelievably - is almost true. Really, you could argue there is no right or wrong, only the popular opinion of the time.

However, you then return to form with more nonsense; because it is not about whether or not an individual considers his or her actions to be right or wrong - or rather a crime - it's about what society thinks as a whole.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the politics discussion forum

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  politics discussion forum
Participants:  19
Total posts:  119
Initial post:  4 Jan 2012
Latest post:  31 Jan 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions