VCC wrote:UFGN wrote:VCC wrote:UFGN wrote:EliteKiller wrote:UFGN wrote:The police do have powers to stop this. Its called the power of arrest. Charge and trial can then follow.
Why have the number of prosecutions fallen despite a rise in violent crime and police having more powers then ever before? Why exactly? It is not acceptable to do away with the need to prove guilt just because it is expensive or hard sometimes. These are the most basic principles of British justice
If its only criminals that need to worry, why are they dispensing with the need to actually convict people?
Why can't you live in the real world instead of some fantasy world where it's all politically correct sweetness and light?
Prosecutions have fallen because the CPS are terrified off bringing charges against any minority, anyone under eighteen, anyone who isn't caught with the knife still sticking in the victim on camera witnessed by at least ten people ... and even with that evidence they're liable to get a judge who just lets them go or a sentence that only 40% ever gets served.
The need to prove guilt has always only been necessary for a conviction, the suspicion of criminal activity was and is sufficient for the police to stop and search ... but now police are terrified off stopping any minority, anyone under eighteen, anyone who isn't caught with the weapon in hand on camera witnessed by at least ten people ... and even then the paperwork will take a week, and they risk being sued for doing their job.
If you've done nothing wrong why would you be worried about being stopped and questioned by a policeman? I've been stopped a few times it didn't end my civil liberties, just show respect, stop, comply, move on. What's the issue?
It's the stripping away off all common sense policing by left wing elite idiots with no concept of the real world that is exactly the problem. In fifty years police have gone from being respected pillars of the community to figures of ridicule ... political correctness well done
Your continued attempt to protect knife wielding thugs under the guise of civil liberties is truly worrying. Maybe you should go visit the next stabbing victim's family and explain why the teenage knife-man has every right to wander the streets unchallenged - I'm sure they will see your side of things.
I don't have to ask the next stab victim's family, I can read the comments of Baroness Lawrence, who opposes this move.
Please dont sink to your usual infant school tactics. Try to be honest for once. Just for once. I'm not defending criminals, I am defending the principal of innocent until proven guilty. If you have a problem with that than its you who is deeply disturbing.
Why are you on about stop and search exactly?
Did I even mention stop and search?
Or is it a convenient straw man because its harder to address what I'm actually talking about, which is forcing unconvicted people to obey a curfew?
Ufgn
Firstly I sympathize with the knife problem and I understand the legal arguement side more than probably most on here.
But just to put a bit of spin on the not guilty until proven guilty legal argument
1 some months ago an australian here in NZ shot and killed 51 people he was caught smoking gun in hand numerous witnesses obviously.
This shit head is pleading not guilty believe it or not,something not uncommon to someone who survives carrying out such an attack
Roll in the legal fat cats wanting to get rich on such an event,under the camouflage of "every man deserves a fair and just hearing and is rightfully allowed legal advice and means to argue this legal representation".
Where I part company with the legal profession here is
1- the man is obviously guilty
2-he had already said he would represent himself before fat cat legals put their hand up Imo to line their pockets knowing it would be a lengthy trial
*Book deals
*Movie deals
*Guaranteed payment from government legal aid partially funded by taxes from the families affected.
Imo the accused in this case is just after a platform to further his vile hatred,and any properly performed legal arguement will give him a sustained or lengthened platform to do this.
So in short for the sake of legal overloading of systems and the cost of such systems on all society imo the law and legal profession and governments need to take a long look and make changes,I are not going to suggest what they look like but tying shit up in an already over worked system for fat cat lawers and out of touch judges probably ain't it.
Well, I'm not sure how any of that is actually relevant to a kid getting a proper trial if accused of being a criminal.
Simply because some criminals insist on a trial despite their guilt being obvious it absolutely does not mean that that is a reason to lessen the rights of a defendant.
Taking the case of a young person to trial will cost money. Gathering evidence against them will cost time and more money.
But to insinuate that that money shouldn't be spent, or to say that its "better to be safe than sorry" is to ignore some very important points
* That young person might be completely innocent and failure to thoroughly test the evidence in a proper court might result in an unjust outcome
* The police will see this as an easy cheap fix and I predict prosecutions will drop still further as these cheap charades of process and justice are used instead.
* The defendant's reputation and that of their family is at stake
Ugh
Can I ask a couple of questions only because your view interests me
1 do you trust police to do thorough investigation ?
2 to what level of crime do you think that robust investigation starts and stops?
3 do you think the legal profession keeps the police investigation long or short fall in line at sentencing time? And at what level of crime does that stop and start?
I know they are loaded questions but after a general thought I wont jump on the answers could ask 10 lawers same question and get differing answers depending on the level they work to
The police are required by law to investigate each crime where possible. Do I trust them to do a thorough investigation? That depends on the circumstances. But do I implicitly trust them to do a thorough investigation by default? No.
This is precisely why a crown court trial is important. Firstly the Crown Prosecution Service lawyers will look at the evidence again, then the defence lawyer will see it and, (this next bit is crucial,) demand that evidence collected by the police that might HELP his client is disclosed.
Finally a professional judge will hear the case and a jury will convict or not.
In a magistrate court under civil law, all that is required is that three citizens whove done a course are convinced "on the balance of probabilities" that this order, amounting to restrictions on liberty, is justified.
Not good enough.
I think the legal system has many, many flaws but none of them are the fault of thr accused, or the victim of course.