Anti-racism protests

On a lighter point I read that a wife came home in the USA to find her 42 year old husband having sex with his 64 year old mother.

That could get a 20 year sentence  

Quoted from ska face

Despite the evidence confirming that this doesn’t work, of course - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20180514-do-long-prison-sentences-deter-crime

Even in the USA, states with the death penalty have a higher murder rate than those without - https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/f.....pared-to-non-death-p

Thanks for the link Ska Face. I read it and whilst I think there's some truth to it eg it's not just about tough punishment but rehabilitation as well in prisons it's just some studies that looked at cases in USA and Norway. On a individual basis I've read numerous cases of high profile boxers that alluded for one in their autobiographys if it wasn't for tough punishment by parents when young they would have gone on to commit far harder crimes. This is borne out as well by others who have lived in the middle east for 15 years. A ex bouncer for one stated that people over there were far less likely to commit low level crimes for fear of being punished by the authorities eg beatings for one for muggings by police .  Likewise the public got involved as well in helping the police give out rough justice.He cited a lot of the problems in the UK were caused by the authorities being to soft on crime and criminals likely to take more risks here as there is no fear. Extreme case I know but the point remains without punishment certain people will go astray.  Hence studies show on a local level certain criminality is borne out of a lack of discipline in the home for  children and as they get older they just turn out to be wild. This is part genetics as well. Hence some children like dogs are more aggressive by nature and where there is no strong discipline it creates a recipe for disaster.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

You miss the point spectacularly.

Legal aid was introduced to enable the poor to have a defence in court. Over the years it has been more difficult to get legal aid yet here we have career criminals benefitting to the tune of £465,000  after killing a policeman whilst he was on duty.

It is not as simple as stating the principle of legal aid is what matters.  If it were that simple and it could be afforded it would available to everyone including in the hypothetical case you mentioned.

I am arguing that spending over £450,000 on legal aid for career criminals who have killed a serving policeman is morally indefensible.

I am sure you are not on the side of these evil and cowardly killers just to try and score points, but dont you think there should be a practical and moral imperative that legal aid is fairly distributed to more deserving cases?

I honestly think you would be surprised at the extent to which legal aid is given in relation to how financially secure the defendants are-especially in cases involving very serious crimes often necessitating a long and expensive trial. I don't know for certain but I'd hazard a guess that only these libel cases and other civil cases find people paying their own costs if they lose.
It is only morally indefensible if you don't consider that there is a premise that everyone is innocent until on the weight of evidence they are found guilty. My morals stretch as far as the most important point of the British legal system being entitlement to a fair trial and the legal representation that ensures that happens.
On the face of it (and I didn't really follow the case and evidence) this was an open and shut case but what would happen if there was real doubt and that doubt couldn't be heard because of a lack of funding for defence lawyers? Morally THAT is indefensible.

Quoted from barralad

I honestly think you would be surprised at the extent to which legal aid is given in relation to how financially secure the defendants are-especially in cases involving very serious crimes often necessitating a long and expensive trial. I don't know for certain but I'd hazard a guess that only these libel cases and other civil cases find people paying their own costs if they lose.
It is only morally indefensible if you don't consider that there is a premise that everyone is innocent until on the weight of evidence they are found guilty. My morals stretch as far as the most important point of the British legal system being entitlement to a fair trial and the legal representation that ensures that happens.
On the face of it (and I didn't really follow the case and evidence) this was an open and shut case but what would happen if there was real doubt and that doubt couldn't be heard because of a lack of funding for defence lawyers? Morally THAT is indefensible.

If you still go canvassing at election time ask some voters if they think their taxes should go to help pay £465,000 of legal aid for career criminals and let us know what reception you get.

The system is flawed. Legal aid is not a given (apart from basic advice) and many people are refused legal aid yet the legal teams for these individuals have trousered £465,000 with a lot more to come as the appeals process continues.

Mrs Harper is quite right to question the absurdity of a legal system that seems to bend over backwards to help the perpetrators but seems to have scant regard for the victims.

I admit this case has inflamed passions about the whole of the justice system not just the amount of legal aid but Mrs Harper is receiving incredible support from the public and quite rightly so.

What would your suggestion be to fix this “flawed” system then?

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

If you still go canvassing at election time ask some voters if they think their taxes should go to help pay £465,000 of legal aid for career criminals and let us know what reception you get.

The system is flawed. Legal aid is not a given (apart from basic advice) and many people are refused legal aid yet the legal teams for these individuals have trousered £465,000 with a lot more to come as the appeals process continues.

Mrs Harper is quite right to question the absurdity of a legal system that seems to bend over backwards to help the perpetrators but seems to have scant regard for the victims.

I admit this case has inflamed passions about the whole of the justice system not just the amount of legal aid but Mrs Harper is receiving incredible support from the public and quite rightly so.

But that's the point. If I went to canvass on this subject then I would present the full case not just use an emotive figure quote without explanation. This is EXACTLY what is wrong with political debate in the 21st century (from both sides) all emotion with facts and context the victims. Desperately sad.
I wouldn't argue with you about the fact that the cost of the legal system seems to be on an upward never ending spiral. I'm not sure what the answer is to that.

Quoted from barralad

But that's the point. If I went to canvass on this subject then I would present the full case not just use an emotive figure quote without explanation. This is EXACTLY what is wrong with political debate in the 21st century (from both sides) all emotion with facts and context the victims. Desperately sad.
I wouldn't argue with you about the fact that the cost of the legal system seems to be on an upward never ending spiral. I'm not sure what the answer is to that.

We know the full case. Career criminals killed a serving policeman. They got a sentence most sane people would consider inadequate and to rub salt into the wounds their legal team milked the publicly funded legal aid system for all it's worth.

It is left to the grieving widow with the support of the public to try to toughen up the sentencing for killing a front line worker and to hold the legal aid system to account.



What else is there to know?

This is not the first case where the public have been outraged by the gross imbalance between how the perpetrators and the victims are treated and sadly it wont be the last.

However I feel a great deal of admiration for Mrs Harper 's determination that something be done to start correcting the imbalance.

With such a high profile case I wouldn't be surprised if someone doesn't have a pop at them in prison, same as Huntley.

Is that a joke? They killed a copper. They’ve got their choice of drugs, first dibs on food and their choice of seats in the canteen for the duration.

Quoted from lew chaterleys lover

We know the full case.

What else is there to know?

Here they are, read a few pages in The Sun and listened to some blowhard on talk radio for 10 mins, so now they know more than the judge, jury, and entire legal system.

Show some humility ffs.