Hang 'em high..

[JBR]

Here's an example.

Lucy Letby was convicted of a number of child murders. There is a sizeable group who claim she is a victim of a miscarriage of justice. Her conviction is based entirely on circumstantial evidence.

So would you hang her?

How would you feel about that if later there was proof that she had been stitched up by another doctor or nurse who feared that their neglect was the cause of those deaths and Lucy Letby was a convenient scapegoat?

Now I'm not saying whether she is an evil bitch or a victim. I've not looked beyond the basic outcome of the case but given the possible doubt I'm glad she wasn't hanged.

I don't possess all the details, of course, but from these words I think that there COULD be an element of doubt of her guilt.  In such circumstances, life imprisonment should be applied but the person found guilty would have the right to attempt to disprove their guilt during that time - not in person, of course, but with help from a friend outside.

[klondike]

 Unsafe conviction. 38 years in jail.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/peter-sullivan-murder-conviction-appeal-diane-sindall-b2749943.html

[JBR]

Unsafe conviction. 38 years in jail.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/peter-sullivan-murder-conviction-appeal-diane-sindall-b2749943.html

Clearly, this conviction of murder was wrong.  If we had brought back hanging for murder, there is no way that his release could have taken place.  Nevertheless, I still agree with capital punishment, but it should never take place if there is any possibility of the crime not being proven beyond any doubt.

Those responsible for convicting and sentencing this poor man should, in return, be give a life sentence themselves.  That would be poetic justice.

[klondike]

If it can't be proven beyond doubt then there is no conviction whatever the crime. The problem is what convinces one person may not convince another. 

[JBR]

If it can't be proven beyond doubt then there is no conviction whatever the crime. The problem is what convinces one person may not convince another.

And yet this man, imprisoned for 38 years, had his case 'proven beyond all doubt'!

So what do we do?  

[klondike]

Imo  carry on without the death penalty unless they can come up with something special for terrorists caught in the act. As I said earlier there should be no sanction on armed police who believe they or the public are at risk and fire. They have to make split second decisions.

I find it a disgrace the the armed officer who shot the known gunman who turned out not to be armed when he was shot but I think had made no attempt to surrender to arrest id now facing a disciplinary hearing despite having been acquitted by a jury.

[muddy]

And yet this man, imprisoned for 38 years, had his case 'proven beyond all doubt'!

So what do we do? 

It wasn't though was it ? 
Quite a lot was circumstantial evidence .
It not like Lee Rigbys killers or the Southport monster .

[JBR]

It wasn't though was it ?
Quite a lot was circumstantial evidence .
It not like Lee Rigbys killers or the Southport monster .

Then he should not have been convicted and sentenced for 40 years.  I can't believe such a long sentence if the crime has not been proved beyond doubt.

May 14, 2025, 02:09:55 PM

Imo  carry on without the death penalty unless they can come up with something special for terrorists caught in the act. As I said earlier there should be no sanction on armed police who believe they or the public are at risk and fire. They have to make split second decisions.

I find it a disgrace the the armed officer who shot the known gunman who turned out not to be armed when he was shot but I think had made no attempt to surrender to arrest id now facing a disciplinary hearing despite having been acquitted by a jury.

I believe the time has come for our police to be armed, as is the case in almost all civilised countries, not only America.

In the case of a known armed gunman, especially after being ordered to surrender, the copper should have been acquitted by the jury, and if so why should he receive a disciplinary hearing?

[klondike]

All life sentences come with a minimum term but it wasn't the minimum term that kept this man in jail. Prisoners only get let out on licence after they have admitted guilt. This man wouldn't admit his guilt. It took 40 years to prove that the evidence was not good enough to convict him.

[JBR]

All life sentences come with a minimum term but it wasn't the minimum term that kept this man in jail. Prisoners only get let out on licence after they have admitted guilt. This man wouldn't admit his guilt. It took 40 years to prove that the evidence was not good enough to convict him.

In my opinion, the man did entirely the correct thing not to have admitted his guilt.
There is something wrong here if, having been able to prove the evidence was incorrect, that he has had to suffer such a long sentence.  At the very least, this innocent man should be due a particularly generous sum in compensation.

As for the judge who sentenced him to 40 years having assumed his guilt, surely he should be obliged to pay in some way for his misjudgement, assuming the old duffer is still alive.

[klondike]

He wasn't sentenced to 40 years. He was sentenced to life as are all who are convicted of murder. That is the mandatory sentence. I have no idea what the minimum term imposed was. He was not released on licence for the reason I gave before - he would not admit guilt. That too is standard.

He was not able to actually prove his innocence. What he did prove was that there was enough doubt that he should not have been convicted. I don't know the detail but what was shown was that his dna was not present in samples taken at the time. I'm assuming that logically if he did it those samples should contain his dna. Maybe they contained somebody else's but the story didn't say that.

[Ashy]

Where did it all go so wrong? 

I reckon we can trace this to policemen being given cars. They weren't taken off the pavements because it was unsafe for them, not at the time, around 1967 if I remember correctly.