Justice ?

[Supervox]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

. . . None of us know the details, so no-one's in a position to say squat.

Er, excuse me but isn't that what living in a 'free' country means ?

That we CAN have an opinion ?

In my original post I merely stated that IN MY OPINION the decision was wrong - & neither you or anyone else will EVER tell me what opinion I can or can't have !!

[Biker Biggles]

I don't have a problem with this.The jury heard the case and came to a verdict and more power to them for coming to their own verdict contrary to what the baying mob seemed to be demanding.
Yes that is justice.

[Sid Squid]

As said more than once above:

The legal system did what it should, the JURY acquitted her.

In fact I can't think of what more the system could have done, they clearly couldn't have charged her with murder, manslaughter being the stiffest charge that could have been brought, which they did.

Now the owner of the dog should have borne some responsibility, no? He was jailed recently for ownership of a banned breed, but I would have thought that he should have been prosecuted in connection with the death, rather than for the ownership. But then the specifics of the law aren't known to me here, perhaps that's not possible.

Word fail me

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Tomcat

This case highlights an off shot issue for me becuase I actually think there should be laws or quide lines at least about drinking or taking drugs when looking after kids.

The amount of times I have been to 'family' functions and ended up coming away because people are p*ssed and behaving like loats, and I don't want my kids to see it, and these people have their own kids with them!

Ceratinly not justice IMHO

No offence Tomcat, but your post sums up what is wrong with public thinking at the moment.

People getting stabbed, create another knife law.

For years a Leatherman multi-tool was always in my pocket or on my belt - a badge of my geekdom and a useful tool. (it was the R1 of the Leatherman range back when I got it - with some cool mods :P )

If I carry it now I could get into big trouble - I know I asked a cop in a police station when I was in reporting a lost mobile phone.

Having it in my pocket or belt, where it is accessible would be worse than in the bottom of a rucksack, but I could still get into trouble either way.

So now you have me, if I carry what is a very useful mini-tool kit, I am a criminal.

I use this as an example because the law in place was already up to the job, ie you stab someone you get into trouble.

Carrying a knife should not be a crime in itself.

The law should only be changed when a totally new thing comes along, or it has become outdated.

Not to criminalise people "just because".

EDIT Addition

In my ranting state I forgot to add that surely the law says a child should be looked after by a competent adult below a certain age. If the adult was incompetent at the time, then I am sure there must be a law that deals with that on the books, so no need for a new law.

Originally Posted by Supervox

Er, excuse me but isn't that what living in a 'free' country means ?

That we CAN have an opinion ?

No.

Originally Posted by Supervox

In my original post I merely stated that IN MY OPINION the decision was wrong - & neither you or anyone else will EVER tell me what opinion I can or can't have !!

Fine, if you wish to base your ill informed opinions on subjective info pulled out of a jurnos @rse.

A group of people no different to you or I looked at the FACTS, and decided she was innocent. How you can come to the conclusion that they're wrong and you're right when all you have to go on is hearsay and conjecture is utterly stupid. This kind of ignorant knee-jerk reaction is a perfect example of how little the general population understands the legal system and precisely why people SHOULDN'T voice their opinion.

Its all feckered up in my opinion.You get a longer jail sentence for drugs than rape... Hmmm i dint know if that should be right. Rape should be a death penalty. Only problem with that is proving it was rape and not just sex... So i guess that cant happen. Killing someone unlawfully should be death penalty - especially if it is a planned kill... a cold blooded murder. (that should free up some space).

I think there is one major thing that is causing the Jails to be so full and that is its easy. They get fed quite well considering, get all the comforts and when they com out they get bennefits and given a job (which they usually lose because they dont want to work). These are the SCUM that should be put in a conscript army and sent into iraq and the middle east, then they can earn their money and freedom!

Another fact i wouldnt mind bringing up is that prison accomodation on average is better than the armed forces who are risking their lives for our country (and for some reason other peoples countries), so these scum can do what they do. (and another minor thing while im bitching is that when the forces are out in a war zone they are on less than £2.50 an hour!!!! HEH

Unless I'm mistaken it takes a small part of the jury to say not guilty and she not guilty is it 2 out of the 12? If this is correct it means that a small part of the jury may have felt sorry for her and said not guilty.

I feel very sorry for this woman she does not appear to be capable of looking after children. The girls parents have got to be held to account as well, why the hell did they leave her with this woman after they already had a problem with the dog. I'm sure they were aware that she smoked herb and drunk as well, not an ideal babysitter.

However I find it suprising that she wasnt convicted, it has been farily well reported in the press unlike and it would appear that she let a dangerous dog in with children. I though it was adults job to protect children from the avoidable dangers of this world.

I saw a clip of her and she was very upset, she will have to live with the conseqences of her actions and being in the family there will be very few places to turn, would prison punish her more, who knows. I really understand what people are saying about supidity not being an excuse, maybe an example should be made here.

I would be amazed if there wasn't an appeal

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

No offence Tomcat, but your post sums up what is wrong with public thinking at the moment.

People getting stabbed, create another knife law.

For years a Leatherman multi-tool was always in my pocket or on my belt - a badge of my geekdom and a useful tool. (it was the R1 of the Leatherman range back when I got it - with some cool mods :P )

If I carry it now I could get into big trouble - I know I asked a cop in a police station when I was in reporting a lost mobile phone.

Having it in my pocket or belt, where it is accessible would be worse than in the bottom of a rucksack, but I could still get into trouble either way.

So now you have me, if I carry what is a very useful mini-tool kit, I am a criminal.

I use this as an example because the law in place was already up to the job, ie you stab someone you get into trouble.

Carrying a knife should not be a crime in itself.

The law should only be changed when a totally new thing comes along, or it has become outdated.

Not to criminalise people "just because".

EDIT Addition

In my ranting state I forgot to add that surely the law says a child should be looked after by a competent adult below a certain age. If the adult was incompetent at the time, then I am sure there must be a law that deals with that on the books, so no need for a new law.

mmm, I take your point, and it did cross my mind when typing it, that is why i then put 'or at least guide lines' in the post. I agree with your opinion on the nanny state ... but that is what we have already become, and it seems to me that common sense has gone out the window now, so we have to use the facility that is available to us.

I like your point about the leatherman, but neither drink nor drugs are useful tools I know that is not the point you were making, it is the nanny state issue. How about some guide lines maybe in the 'good parenting paphlet' ..... that should influence plenty of people who would otherwise ignore any recommendations

So do you have a problem with the drink and drive law? Some laws are good, some bad, and some are taken too far and out of context.

(Don't yawn ) maybe something along the lines of 'parenting without due care and attention'! She made a decision to let the dog in the house, which if sober she may not have even considered, not thinking logically. (oh all this is IF in fact it has been reported correctly that she was drunk/stoned!!)


ps: I'm not tee total or anti-drink/drugs, just when in charge of kids. Language and behaviour beomes much more 'adult' and inapropriate, IMO :0

Originally Posted by Tomcat

mmm, I take your point, and it did cross my mind when typing it, that is why i then put 'or at least guide lines' in the post. I agree with your opinion on the nanny state ... but that is what we have already become, and it seems to me that common sense has gone out the window now, so we have to use the facility that is available to us.

You can't combat a lack of common sense with the nanny state, that's what's contributing to it in the first place.

Originally Posted by tomjones2

Unless I'm mistaken it takes a small part of the jury to say not guilty and she not guilty is it 2 out of the 12? If this is correct it means that a small part of the jury may have felt sorry for her and said not guilty.

No offence, but this is another indication of how utterly wrong peoples view on the justice system is. Two stories in the paper:

'"Guilty" person let free'
'Person who's been locked up for 20 years is found to be innocent'

Which are people going to see as the greater injustice? Going to be the first one isn't it? Well, I can't think of anything more scary and unjust than being locked up for a crime I didn't commit.