Stephen Lawrence..again

[Sam Slater]

Regarding retrials.........one thing does bother me and that is the mindset of the jury in a retrial.

If one is part of a retrial one could assume that the reason for the retrial is that the original court case and verdict was incorrect or unsatisfactory in some way. I know it's not strictly always the case but that thinking could affect a juror's thinking and they may go into a retrial with preconceived perceptions, making them less objective and fair. This would be especially true on trials that have had lots of media coverage.

Going into a trial with the mindset of 'correcting an injustice' would be dangerous and could easily cloud one's judgement.

[Essex Lad]

David Johnson wrote:

> 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.

No, I haven't missed the point. You asked how Robches might feel if his mother had been raped and murdered and new evidence came to light. Obviously, he would want a new trial which (hence my point) is the reason we don't allow people with a personal interest to be judge or jury.

The same goes for victim statements ? a mother has been raped and murdered. Reading out to the court a statement saying the victim's son/daughter is upset/devastated... of course they are. How could they be anything else? It puts emotion into a situation where none should exist. The point of the trial (any criminal trial) is the prosecution of the alleged offender; how his victim or their relative feels should be irrelevant to the proceedings. The crime should not be a personal matter.

[David Johnson]

Fair comment.

"If one is part of a retrial one could assume that the reason for the retrial is that the original court case and verdict was incorrect or unsatisfactory in some way"

However in some cases retrials occur because there has been no verdict. The jury could not make a decision. Secondly, the only way, a serious crime can be retried after a previous acquittal is if there is judged to be new and compelling evidence. So it is not a comment on the "unsatisfactory" nature of the previous acquittal, more of a statement that the jury did not have all the info to make an informed decision.

[Milk Tray Man]

I completely understand Sam's point but I have absolutely no problem with retrials following a previous aquittal, provided that the new evidence really is "strong and compelling" (DNA for example).

it seems silly to me that a murderer or rapist should be allowed to remain on the streets just because a jury didn't have all the facts the last time round and so weren't in a position to convict (i.e. "beyond all reasonable doubt"). In serious, violent cases in particular, justice and for that matter the safety of the public shouldn't just be a one-shot deal.

[David Johnson]

"Obviously, he would want a new trial which (hence my point) is the reason we don't allow people with a personal interest to be judge or jury."

This is pure guesswork on your part. Robches has had many opportunities to answer the question, but has refused point blank to do so. I have already explained why he refuses to answer the question.

Secondly you are obviously missing the point. Witness statements are mostly about people explaining the impact of a crime on them, physically, emotionally, financially etc. etc.

Retrials after previous acquittals are a completely different scenario.

It is not a victim statement which dictates a retrial but "new and compelling evidence" and whether the crime fits into the category of one which can be retried after an acquittal.

[Essex Lad]

I'm not missing the point but you obviously know best and what I am thinking, so no reason to go on.

[David Johnson]

We will agree to differ then.

I don't know what is best or what you are thinking.

[Robches]

David Johnson wrote:

> "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.


David:

I have tried to be civil to you, but clearly it does not work. I won't lower myself to your level, as you are not worth it. It is clearly impossible to have any sort of civilised discussion with you, and not worth trying.

[Sam Slater]

Don't think my fears over juror's mindsets indicates I'm against retrials. I'm for them.

I was just pointing out a possible downside and that we should be doubly careful in expressing and hammering home that they should see the retrial as a completely new case.......a clean slate, as it were, rather than 'righting some wrong'. And this would be especially hard when the previous trial has been written about in the press.

Hope that makes sense.