egafd.com

Interesting statistics. The CPS are concerned with low conviction rates and so it could be argued that they're more interested in 'winning' than they are in justice. They equate value for money in terms of public money with convictions when it could equally be argued that an acquittal is also good value for money where it is the right decision.

Perhaps rather than looking at the kinds of factors they cite as reasons for low rates of conviction they ought to look closer to home at the strength of the cases they are proceeding with. This was referred to by the CPS spokeswoman who spoke after the Barry George verdict who said something to the effect that they can't proceed only with those cases where there is a very high probability of conviction (ie watertight), but this being the case you'd have to accept that in other cases the balance of probability is not as favourable. You'd also need to acknowledge (but not publicly) that you'll lose some of these cases.

Perhaps the CPS ought to be more meticulous in it's assessment of the merits and soundness of the case for the prosecution.

True, but they're not complaining about BG doing nothing for 'em.

Okay, I can't live in your very 'black and white', 'right or wrong', 'deserving or undeserving' world. I don't know enough about Aspergers to say whether that kind of view of the world is symptomatic .. but it could be. Personally I tend more to the view that 'If you're not confused you don't know what's going on' which is diametrically opposed to your own so we'll struggle to establish common ground.

[quote]I have Aspergers,[/quote]

Ah....this explains everything. Thank you, Alice.

[quote]I actually have more of an obsession to see things from every conceivable angle & analyse it in minute detail.[/quote]

This doesn't show in your opinions here, Alice.

Alice In Blunderland wrote:

> I think there was enough evidence to convict even without the
> DNA, I do think aside from Miss Dandos family & partner & the
> public being failed that George has also been failed- he should
> never have been on the streets anyway.


What fucking DNA evidence are you talking about? Can you really not grasp the fact that the minute speck of matter, which was originally called "firearms residue", but which now has no evidential value, was not DNA evidence? Are you so fucking thick you think all forensic evidence is DNA evidence?