Dalton Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I don't suppose any of you people who are saying she got off lightly have ever made a mistake in your life have you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grianane Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Yes, and as the question should be ".....have been let of yourselves have you" no. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TerryMcCann Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Good point actually, he should be careful not to piss her off otherwise he might wake up one morning with his nuts in a jar! 'nuts in a jar' now that could definately be a Turner prize winner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cambon Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Yes, and as the question should be ".....have been let of yourselves have you" no. As I said earlier, she has not been let off. Far from it. The suspended sentence is going to follow her for the rest of her life. Even little things like security checks at airports and making reservations at hotels will raise extra questions. Doing a few weeks in the slammer is nothing compared to the stigma she will now have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celt Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 The suspended sentence is going to follow her for the rest of her life. Only 12 years actually due to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act. making reservations at hotels will raise extra questions. What, like " Would Madam like plastic knives and forks to use or would you like something sharp " or " Yes Madam, you do have to use plastic glasses in case you attack someone ". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 {BBC News] Newsbot has been quiet on this one. The botty is pretty good when it comes to cats getting stuck up trees and letting us know when there's been a ploughing match though.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramsea Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Another stupid and pointless topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamplemousse Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I just don't get it. What is this umbrella defence of 'prescription drugs' and why is everybody on them? Are people taking them so they can then commit a premeditated crime and plead innocent? ('Sure, I took his head off with a machete but I was on prescription drugs')? But seriously, how can you have one strand of defence that runs 'I was defending my boyfriend' and another saying 'I was out of my head on Piriton/Gaviscon/Immodium and can't remember how it all went down'? As for 'glittering future'...DOES SOMEONE DESERVE LESS OF A CHANCE IF THEY'VE ALREADY GOT A CRAP FUTURE? The whole thing makes me quite angry, actually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VikingRaider Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 I just don't get it. What is this umbrella defence of 'prescription drugs' and why is everybody on them? Are people taking them so they can then commit a premeditated crime and plead innocent? ('Sure, I took his head off with a machete but I was on prescription drugs')? Surely its just a case of the brief trying to use whatever they can to claim mitigating circumstances and get a reduced sentence for their client. I'm sure the deemster thinks its absolute b*ll*x as well but its just the way things work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nipper Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 On the Isle of Man I have seen advocates lie in court in order to furnish their client's case. This can be seen by a deemster as a bit laddish but obviously quite acceptable (heh well, they were there themselves not so long ago ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keyboarder Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 That's actually quite a serious allegation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sausage Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 In a world where a weekend news report contains details of Chris Langhams 11 month sentence for posessing cat 5 child pornography (the worst category) and two young lads receive 15 month and 1 year sentences for spraying graffiti, how on earth can anyone have any faith whatsoever in police, judiciary, politicians etc ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 how on earth can anyone have any faith whatsoever in police, judiciary, politicians etc ?? I take your point about the judiciary but please remember that the police do not set the sentences. My brother (who is a senior policeman in England) often expresses his despair at the sentencing of criminals. I make no comment on the case referred to in this thread as I don’t know all the facts and don’t like to speculate with people’s lives. As for having faith in politicians…………………………………. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTF Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 That's actually quite a serious allegation. but probably true, lawyers are paid to be on the clients side. one week they will be argueing black is white and next week white will be black. a prime example of this was one of OJ simpsons defence lawyers. all during the trial he was argueing DNA evidence was not always 100% reliable in some cases. after the farce was over and OJ was skint archive footage of the same lawyer showed him stating DNA evidence was irrefutable. their opinion is payed for, what works in thier favour one week they will be argueing against the same thing the following week. you go into some lawyers and they will say you have a good case and they will represent you knowing full well your fooked but it will buy them a new car. the honest advice would be to tell you you're on a loser and acceptyour fate without charging you big dollar an hour on false hope.they also are alleged to keep cases going, sending letters back and forth to charge the client for when it could have be settled months previous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mojomonkey Posted September 18, 2007 Share Posted September 18, 2007 Mr Wright can probably explain this better but I'd always understood that it comes down to the innocence until proven guilty thing. Unless a client tells his advocate that they are guilty they have to assume that they are innocent regardless of what they personally make of the evidence. It is the courts that are making the judgement not the participants. Obviously there will be occasions where guilt will be apparent but it is largely a case of conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.