Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Humph Warden Bennett on June 29, 2015, 12:14:54 PM
-
Is this really a good idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095
Is this not turning Janner into a victim?
-
If he is found fit to stand trial, why would he be deemed to be a victim?
If he is found to be unfit, then is it not right that there should be a way of deciding whether or not he committed the crimes without coming to a judgement of punishment?
-
I am glad they are putting Janner on trial. In spite of his dementia he has been well enough to attend Parliament, I heard the other week!
-
If he is found fit to stand trial, why would he be deemed to be a victim?
If he is found to be unfit, then is it not right that there should be a way of deciding whether or not he committed the crimes without coming to a judgement of punishment?
If he is unfit to defend himself, he will suddenly become a confused old man who is being pursued by an unscrupulous authority against the advice of its own senior officials.
And no I do not think there can be a fair hearing if somebody cannot speak in their own defence.
-
I am glad they are putting Janner on trial. In spite of his dementia he has been well enough to attend Parliament, I heard the other week!
I counsel against believing everything in the Daily Wail, even though they were spot on with their criticism of Cheryl Cole's bum tattoo.
-
If he is found fit to stand trial, why would he be deemed to be a victim?
If he is found to be unfit, then is it not right that there should be a way of deciding whether or not he committed the crimes without coming to a judgement of punishment?
If he is unfit to defend himself, he will suddenly become a confused old man who is being pursued by an unscrupulous authority against the advice of its own senior officials.
And no I do not think there can be a fair hearing if somebody cannot speak in their own defence.
Except that isn't really true. The case was reviewed under the rules brought by his accusers that exist for this and the independent QC said go ahead, not the 'unscrupulous authority'.
-
If he is found fit to stand trial, why would he be deemed to be a victim?
If he is found to be unfit, then is it not right that there should be a way of deciding whether or not he committed the crimes without coming to a judgement of punishment?
If he is unfit to defend himself, he will suddenly become a confused old man who is being pursued by an unscrupulous authority against the advice of its own senior officials.
And no I do not think there can be a fair hearing if somebody cannot speak in their own defence.
Except that isn't really true. The case was reviewed under the rules brought by his accusers that exist for this and the independent QC said go ahead, not the 'unscrupulous authority'.
But that is how the matter will be perceived if it turns out Janner really is incapable. The mood of the public can change very quickly- remember Louise Woodward?
-
I don't know how it might be perceived if he is incapable but it would be wrong on facts.
-
Is this really a good idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095
Is this not turning Janner into a victim?
Not sure.
On the one hand it will give the Victims some kind of 'Closure', on the other hand, and enormous amount of public money is going to be spent on a trial which can't actually pass sentence because of his dementia diagnosis.
I think I detect a fiasco in the making.
-
I am glad they are putting Janner on trial. In spite of his dementia he has been well enough to attend Parliament, I heard the other week!
I counsel against believing everything in the Daily Wail, even though they were spot with their criticism of Cheryl Cole's bum tattoo.
I never read that ghastly paper I heard it on the Beeb!
-
I am glad they are putting Janner on trial. In spite of his dementia he has been well enough to attend Parliament, I heard the other week!
It was the House of Lords that he has attended - where dementia is almost a requirement.
-
Is this really a good idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095
Is this not turning Janner into a victim?
Not sure.
On the one hand it will give the Victims some kind of 'Closure', on the other hand, and enormous amount of public money is going to be spent on a trial which can't actually pass sentence because of his dementia diagnosis.
I think I detect a fiasco in the making.
In the making? Surely it has already been a fiasco?
Can I check what people think should happen generally? Presumably the independent review is reasonable? Is it the trial of facts that is worrying people? Because I see that as problematic as well. One could, of course, suggest a public inquiry but we seem unutterably bad at the currently.
I doubt the public will be quite as worried by a show trial which might at least expose why the investigation was quite so badly handled as yet another inability to deal with accusations against establishment figures for sexual assault of children. I find myself way less concerned about this than people losing dossiers, ignoring accusations and aiding in cover ups.
-
Is this really a good idea?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33310095
Is this not turning Janner into a victim?
Not sure.
On the one hand it will give the Victims some kind of 'Closure', on the other hand, and enormous amount of public money is going to be spent on a trial which can't actually pass sentence because of his dementia diagnosis.
I think I detect a fiasco in the making.
In the making? Surely it has already been a fiasco?
Can I check what people think should happen generally? Presumably the independent review is reasonable? Is it the trial of facts that is worrying people? Because I see that as problematic as well. One could, of course, suggest a public inquiry but we seem unutterably bad at the currently.
I doubt the public will be quite as worried by a show trial which might at least expose why the investigation was quite so badly handled as yet another inability to deal with accusations against establishment figures for sexual assault of children. I find myself way less concerned about this than people losing dossiers, ignoring accusations and aiding in cover ups.
Janner's defence lawyers will obviously claim that he is not fit to appear in court and even if they did finally decide that he is guilty, they can't do anything - so the whole thing will be ridiculous.
The victims might be better off (in all ways) pursuing him in the civil court.
-
A question. Could the DPP have called for a 'trial of the facts' in the first place having decided that Jenner was unfit to stand trial?
I find the calls for her resignation somewhat unsavoury. After all, it seems that she followed all the procedures and took all the advice she was given before coming to a conclusion. Surely it is the regs that ought to be being questioned, not the person applying them?
-
A question. Could the DPP have called for a 'trial of the facts' in the first place having decided that Jenner was unfit to stand trial?
I find the calls for her resignation somewhat unsavoury. After all, it seems that she followed all the procedures and took all the advice she was given before coming to a conclusion. Surely it is the regs that ought to be being questioned, not the person applying them?
But is the 'exercise' likely to achieve anything?
-
I find the calls for her resignation somewhat unsavoury. After all, it seems that she followed all the procedures and took all the advice she was given before coming to a conclusion. Surely it is the regs that ought to be being questioned, not the person applying them?
I agree. There is an element of mob rule here.
We are constantly reminded of the need for the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that people accused of crimes have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. If Janner is even moderately demented this will be impossible for him to do.
Action should have been taken years ago.
-
I find the calls for her resignation somewhat unsavoury. After all, it seems that she followed all the procedures and took all the advice she was given before coming to a conclusion. Surely it is the regs that ought to be being questioned, not the person applying them?
I agree. There is an element of mob rule here.
We are constantly reminded of the need for the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that people accused of crimes have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. If Janner is even moderately demented this will be impossible for him to do.
Action should have been taken years ago.
I also find it disturbing that the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been all but abandoned by some posters here.
-
I find the calls for her resignation somewhat unsavoury. After all, it seems that she followed all the procedures and took all the advice she was given before coming to a conclusion. Surely it is the regs that ought to be being questioned, not the person applying them?
I agree. There is an element of mob rule here.
We are constantly reminded of the need for the rule of law. Part of the rule of law is that people accused of crimes have the opportunity to defend themselves in court. If Janner is even moderately demented this will be impossible for him to do.
Action should have been taken years ago.
I also find it disturbing that the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' has been all but abandoned by some posters here.
That would be one of the issues with a trial of the facts, I suspect, but the innocent till proven guilty thing needs to be unpacked a bit here. It is a legal presumption, it is not something that we require everyone to believe. Indeed, if some people did not believe someone was guilty before we had a trial, there would be no trials. That some on this board express their belief that Janner is guilty isn't necessarily problematic - it would make them bad jurors though.
I also struggle with this being portrayed as mob rule. The procedures for asking for a review have been followed, carried out by an independent QC, generated by the appeal from those accusing Janner as was their right. We have to be careful that we don't just brand anyone seeking that he stand trial as part of some mob. Even those who have called for the resignation of the DPP might be doing for non mob like reasons, possibly if they are close to those accusing Janner, it is understandable given some of the overlap between the decision and Janner still claiming attendance allowance in HoL.
So far, the system is working as designed and while there may be worries that the review by the independent QC might have become subverted by political decisions, that applies to the original decision. This relates to the question of whether there is a benefit to this and it is certainly arguable either way, but in its favour if the accusations are true it will be the right thing to do for those who suffered any abuse. Further we have a real issue in this country with actual child abuse having been covered up to a greater or lesser extent by parts of the establishment. How wide that goes is unclear but Cyril Smith makes it clear that it has happened. It is not an ideal situation that accused or accusers rights become compromised by a larger situation but in this case they have and any decision will be both seen in the light and affect how people think about the justice system going forward. It seems at least arguable to me that due to the mistakes and breaches of the past justice must be seen to be done in a more transparent way and that some form of trial or inquiry would be required for that.
-
I don't disagree with most of that NS but I do have a worry about the atmosphere that is being created around this issue and the rush to judgement by some.
I fear that one day somebody is going to be accused and in the process somebody who is innocent is going to be targeted and injured or worse by a 'mob'. Indeed I believe something of this nature has already happened somewhere in the South Wast.
There needs to be a calmer, more rational approach to this than just screaming "Brand them" - see Pedophile thread.
-
Anyone convicted of paedophilia is the scum of the earth and should be branded in my opinion.
-
I agree. There is an element of mob rule here.
The mob being who? Those people who believe themselves to have been victims of a potential crime?
Action should have been taken years ago.
Unquestionably, but that doesn't mean that it can't be taken now if a perpetrator is fit to stand trial.
-
I fear that one day somebody is going to be accused and in the process somebody who is innocent is going to be targeted and injured or worse by a 'mob'. Indeed I believe something of this nature has already happened somewhere in the South Wast.
It has happened on a number of occasions, Trent; remember the paediatrician who was harrassed by a mob who thought she was a paedophile: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society?
It happens almost everytime there is a big paedophile incident/story - seem to remember that there was a similar incident in Cardiff early on in the Savile story.
-
Anyone convicted of paedophilia is the scum of the earth and should be branded in my opinion.
And if they are convicted incorrectly?
Miscarriages of justice do happen you know.
-
I fear that one day somebody is going to be accused and in the process somebody who is innocent is going to be targeted and injured or worse by a 'mob'. Indeed I believe something of this nature has already happened somewhere in the South Wast.
It has happened on a number of occasions, Trent; remember the paediatrician who was harrassed by a mob who thought she was a paedophile: http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2000/aug/30/childprotection.society?
It happens almost everytime there is a big paedophile incident/story - seem to remember that there was a similar incident in Cardiff early on in the Savile story.
Glad to see you've got the hang of this spelling malarkey ;)
-
Unquestionably, but that doesn't mean that it can't be taken now if a perpetrator is fit to stand trial.
But is this pseudo trial going to achieve anything at all?
If the victims started a civil action against Janner, they could hurt him a lot more and actually gain something themselves.
-
Alison Saunders is damned if she does and damned if she doesn't.
The DPP has received considerable criticism for taking over the prosecution of Eleanor de Freitas, a mentally-ill woman who made a false accusation of rape. Eleanor de Freitas subsequently killed herself.
The DPP is now receiving considerable criticism for refraining to prosecute a demented old man.
-
Glad to see you've got the hang of this spelling malarkey ;)
The same confusion exists in American English, Trent - pediatrician and pedophile. After all, they both come from the same root word.