"First, you might care to acknowledge that the failed private prosecution was criminal, not civil."
By civil, I meant that it was brought by the Lawrence family, not by the state.
"Second, you might care to acknowledge that the double jeopardy rule existed for 800 years "
Well I guess so did capital punishment and I don't agree with that either.
"one of the reasons was to enable a second trial in the Lawrence case,"
Amongst a whole host of other calls, nothing to do with the Lawrence case which had been made over time for the end of double jeopardy. You completely ignore that. And the cases brought again following a previous acquittal did not initially involve the Lawrence case. You completely ignore that.
And finally I have nothing more to say to you on this topic other than you have completely ignored to answer the following point -
If your mother had been raped and killed, would you oppose a retrial after a previous acquittal if new evidence emerged leading to your mother's murderers conviction?
Over to you Robches - would you be against the retrial?
Stephen Lawrence..again
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Robches
And surprise, surprise, no answer to my question despite my answering all your points.
Like so many, you are very willing to pontificate on the general issue but when I bring you down to think about the potential impact on your own family, you go very, very, very quiet.
Like so many, you are very willing to pontificate on the general issue but when I bring you down to think about the potential impact on your own family, you go very, very, very quiet.
-
Cuntybollocks
- Posts: 378
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Robches
Like so many, you are very willing to pontificate on the general issue but when I bring you down to think about the potential impact on your own family, you go very, very, very quiet.
Or maybe like so many others on this forum he has neither the time or the inclination to enter in to a marathon debate where you always have to have the last word and proclaim you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Just a thought.
Or maybe like so many others on this forum he has neither the time or the inclination to enter in to a marathon debate where you always have to have the last word and proclaim you are right and everyone else is wrong.
Just a thought.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Robches
"where you always have to have the last word"
Pot..kettle..black
I will leave the last word to you................................................again.
Pot..kettle..black
I will leave the last word to you................................................again.
Re: Stephen Lawrence..again
David:
You would do well to appreciate the difference between a civil and criminal case. It was the Lawrence family's ill advised decision to pursue a doomed private criminal prosecution which did indeed in large part lead to the end of the 800 year old double jeopardy rule. Obviously a legal principle of that age means nothing to you, so fair enough, it goes down the plug hole along with the right to silence and other legal protections which clearly are not needed in the 21st century.
As to your classy point about my mother, I really cannot believe that you are not trying to be provocative in the extreme, but I will not rise to your bait, rather I am happy to let you stew in your own juice.
You would do well to appreciate the difference between a civil and criminal case. It was the Lawrence family's ill advised decision to pursue a doomed private criminal prosecution which did indeed in large part lead to the end of the 800 year old double jeopardy rule. Obviously a legal principle of that age means nothing to you, so fair enough, it goes down the plug hole along with the right to silence and other legal protections which clearly are not needed in the 21st century.
As to your classy point about my mother, I really cannot believe that you are not trying to be provocative in the extreme, but I will not rise to your bait, rather I am happy to let you stew in your own juice.
Re: Stephen Lawrence..again
are criminals racists or do they not give a fuck who their victims are as long as they make money
Re: Stephen Lawrence..again
David Johnson wrote:
>
> If your mother had been raped and killed, would you oppose a
> retrial after a previous acquittal if new evidence emerged
> leading to your mother's murderers conviction?
>
Which is why we don't allow people who know the victim to be judge or jury and also why victim statements are a complete waste of time. If someone's mother has been raped or killed, of course they and their family will be devastated. That goes without saying, so what is the point of a victim statement? And yes I know we have had this debate before and you pointed to some daft Home Office link explaining what they are ? the first point was to explain how victims felt...
>
> If your mother had been raped and killed, would you oppose a
> retrial after a previous acquittal if new evidence emerged
> leading to your mother's murderers conviction?
>
Which is why we don't allow people who know the victim to be judge or jury and also why victim statements are a complete waste of time. If someone's mother has been raped or killed, of course they and their family will be devastated. That goes without saying, so what is the point of a victim statement? And yes I know we have had this debate before and you pointed to some daft Home Office link explaining what they are ? the first point was to explain how victims felt...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Robches
"As to your classy point about my mother, I really cannot believe that you are not trying to be provocative in the extreme, but I will not rise to your bait, rather I am happy to let you stew in your own juice"
You are obviously a coward. I knew you would wheedle and wheedle and wheedle to avoid answering my question. You come out with a host of reasons why there should not be a retrial if someone is already been acquitted. So I put a mirror to your face and get you to think about the actual implications of what you are saying at a personal level. In the same way that all families affected by this law have to face the implications.
And you are too cowardly to answer. Why? Well it is obvious. If you say No I would not want retrials to be available even if evidence emerged e.g. DNA which proved the acquitted person had actually raped and killed your mother, you would obviously be cruel and unfeeling to the extreme towards the rest of your family in denying them some closure and to see the murderer sent down.
If you were to say Yes, I want a retrial in the above situation, you are blowing all your arguments out of the water.
There is only one person that is stewing in their own juice, Robches and that is you, obviously.
You are obviously a coward. I knew you would wheedle and wheedle and wheedle to avoid answering my question. You come out with a host of reasons why there should not be a retrial if someone is already been acquitted. So I put a mirror to your face and get you to think about the actual implications of what you are saying at a personal level. In the same way that all families affected by this law have to face the implications.
And you are too cowardly to answer. Why? Well it is obvious. If you say No I would not want retrials to be available even if evidence emerged e.g. DNA which proved the acquitted person had actually raped and killed your mother, you would obviously be cruel and unfeeling to the extreme towards the rest of your family in denying them some closure and to see the murderer sent down.
If you were to say Yes, I want a retrial in the above situation, you are blowing all your arguments out of the water.
There is only one person that is stewing in their own juice, Robches and that is you, obviously.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Essex Lad
You have missed the point completely. Why don't you start a thread on victim statements?
The point I am making has nothing whatsoever to do with victim statements. It is about taking general comments and discussing how such general laws might work in personal cases.
The point I am making has nothing whatsoever to do with victim statements. It is about taking general comments and discussing how such general laws might work in personal cases.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Robches 2
"You would do well to appreciate the difference between a civil and criminal case"
Repeat of your point already answered by me in order for you to evade answering my question.
"It was the Lawrence family's ill advised decision to pursue a doomed private criminal prosecution which did indeed in large part lead to the end of the 800 year old double jeopardy rule"
Repeat of your point already answered by me in order for you to evade answering my question.
"Obviously a legal principle of that age means nothing to you,"
Faulty supposition in order for you to evade answering my question. I merely pointed out that the length of time something is law is not purely a reason in itself to keep it. Presumably, you are against the reintroduction of drawing and quartering as a punishment?
"As to your classy point about my mother, I really cannot believe that you are not trying to be provocative in the extreme"
Fake annoyance to evade answering my question. Clearly the question is a theoretical one. There is nothing offensive about putting such hypothetical, theoretical questions to get you to think.
"but I will not rise to your bait"
Because you can't answer the question can you? I will leave you to stew in your own juice.
Repeat of your point already answered by me in order for you to evade answering my question.
"It was the Lawrence family's ill advised decision to pursue a doomed private criminal prosecution which did indeed in large part lead to the end of the 800 year old double jeopardy rule"
Repeat of your point already answered by me in order for you to evade answering my question.
"Obviously a legal principle of that age means nothing to you,"
Faulty supposition in order for you to evade answering my question. I merely pointed out that the length of time something is law is not purely a reason in itself to keep it. Presumably, you are against the reintroduction of drawing and quartering as a punishment?
"As to your classy point about my mother, I really cannot believe that you are not trying to be provocative in the extreme"
Fake annoyance to evade answering my question. Clearly the question is a theoretical one. There is nothing offensive about putting such hypothetical, theoretical questions to get you to think.
"but I will not rise to your bait"
Because you can't answer the question can you? I will leave you to stew in your own juice.