Kidnapped girl found 18 years later

[lookout123]

As to the first part of your post: I'm American - I'm entitled to inconsistencies, deal with it.

My view is pretty simple. a vital function of government is to create and uphold laws. that might be constitutional or something. no other organization or system makes sense.

medical care already has a system in place. private companies exist to provide medical care at a price. I don't want the government stepping in and trying to do something I believe is better handled by private organizations.

[lookout123]

I see what you are saying, but I don't really see why leaving someone to rot in prison is better than an execution on the off chance that one person "might" be innocent.

[Flint]

An execution is irreversible.

[DanaC]

because a prison sentence can be ended if new evidence or a successful appeal shows that they were wrongfully convicted. A death sentence cannot be reversed once it is applied.

As to the appeal process: does everybody on death row have the same access to the same quality of lawyer? is the appeal process also dependant upon people to carry it out and make the decision? I know of several cases in the UK where initial appeals have upheld the conviction and later appeals (brought when new evidence has been brought forward, or when a lack of probity in the police case has been uncovered) have resulted in their being freed.

The Birmingham Six are a classic case. They were convicted because they were in the wrong place, at the wrong time and happened to be Irish:

In March 1976 their first appeal was dismissed by Lord Chief Justice Widgery[12].

Journalist (later Government minister) Chris Mullin investigated the case for Granada TV's World in Action series. In 1985, the first of several World in Action programmes casting serious doubt on the men's convictions was broadcast. In 1986, Mullin's book, Error of Judgment - The Truth About the Birmingham Pub Bombings, set out a detailed case supporting the men's innocence including his claim to have met with some of those actually responsible for the bombings. Home Secretary Douglas Hurd MP referred the case back to the Court of Appeal.

In January 1988, after a six week hearing (at that time the longest criminal appeal hearing ever held), the men's convictions were upheld. The appeal judges, under the Lord Chief Justice Lord Lane, in their summing up strongly supported the original conviction. Over the next three years newspaper articles, television documentaries and books brought forward new evidence to question the conviction while campaign groups calling for the men's release sprang up across Britain, Ireland, Europe and the USA.

Their third appeal, in 1991, was successful. Hunter was represented by Lord Gifford QC, others by noted human rights solicitor, Gareth Peirce. New evidence of police fabrication and suppression of evidence, the discrediting of both the confessions and the 1975 forensic evidence led to the Crown withdrawing most of its case against the men.

The Court of Appeal stated about the forensic evidence that: Dr. Skuse's conclusion was wrong, and demonstrably wrong, judged even by the state of forensic science in 1974

This is disturbing on a number of levels. Firstly, had the death penalty been an option at the time of their conviction these men would almost certainly have been executed. The impetus to keep pushing for appeals would therefore have been greatly lessened (although a recent pardon of a man wrongly hanged in the 60s would suggest it may have been possible) and the best outcome would be a posthumous pardon. The political nature of their conviction may have led to continued investigation into the safety of their conviction. That impetus would be a rarity, however. The man hanged in the 60s was a cause celeb because of his severe learning disabilities. An average bloke wrongfully convicted of rape or murder and hanged for it, wuold simply be dead and there wuold be no lengthy process of uncovering an uncomfortable truth: we would never know he'd died an innocent.

Secondly, because there was no death penalty involved, these men were eventually freed. Having lost half theirlives to a prison sentence for a crime of which they were entirely innocent, they at the least have had the opportunity to experience freedom again. It's a small comfort, but it's better than nothing.

Thirdly, the political element of this conviction and the unwillingness of the system to overturn it worries me. Class, race and politics. This is in our system where the judges are not elected. Add the potential for a Judge losing his job if he acts in a way that upsets his electorate (opens him to charges of being soft on crime for example) and the risks are, in my opinion, all the greater. How are you that there is never a racial/class/political element in either your original trials or subsequent appeals process?

As a final question, to repeat myself somewhat: is everyone able to access the same quality of legal representation? Is it free at the point of need? Are the lawyers representing the poor, the same as those representing the wealthy?

[lookout123]

Well... they were Irish.

The wait on death row is loooong. Appeals constantly being refiled. Can we guarantee that everyone has the same quality of attorney? hell, no. Can I guarantee that two heart transplant patients have the same quality of surgeon? hell no, welcome to life.

I completely understand why you feel the way you do and I respect that. Your concerns just don't really move me. I simply feel some crimes are worthy of the death penalty so I believe we should have it and use it.

[DanaC]

How sure are you that every person who is actually executed, is guilty of the crime they were convicted of?

[lookout123]

you're playing to the wrong guy. I understand your point. It just doesn't grab me. Am I certain that no one who has been executed was innocent? Nope.

[DanaC]

Ok. How convinced are you that the system willl never be subject to political considerations, rather than judicial ones?

[Aliantha]

I doubt that those in favour of the death penalty would be quite so philosophical about it if it were them or their loved ones wrongly convicted.

[DanaC]

What I find really difficult to get my head around, is the fact that people who have such little trust in government and/or elected officials in most other respects, are prepared for them to have life and death power over individual citizens when it comes to judicial processes. (as Flint pointed out)

[Aliantha]

The world is full of double standards Dana. You should know that by now.

[DanaC]

Oh I do I do. But if your gut instinct is that government is inefficient and less competant at delivering services, open to corruption and partisan in nature: how can your gut instinct also lead you to allow it to have the power of life and death over you?

Perhaps that's the problem. It's other innocent people who go to death row.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by DanaC

What I find really difficult to get my head around, is the fact that people who have such little trust in government and/or elected officials in most other respects, are prepared for them to have life and death power over individual citizens when it comes to judicial processes. (as Flint pointed out)

But the jury isn't government or elected... although I agree there is enough possibility of meddling by those who are (or even just politically motivated).

[Aliantha]

Surely one cannot try and argue that the system of law is not a government organization? The fact that the jury is selected from 'peers' is not particularly relevent considering it is only one facet of the system.

Who pays the judges?

[DanaC]

That's a good point Jinx. But the Judge that directs the jury is. And the appeals process is governed and administrated by officials.

Incidentally: how many appeals are death row convicts allowed to make, and on what grounds can they make them? Anyone here know?

Also, is it the jury that decides the sentence over there? Or do they just deliver the verdict?

Over here our jury reaches a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but it's the judge who then sentences: they are strictly governed on what sentences can and should be applied, with some crimes carryng mandatory sentences. Mandatory sentences are decided by the legislative process, which is of course, governmental.