Justice ?

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

If bringing up a typo is the best you can do...

I wouldn't profess to know alot about the justice system, just the basics. The most fundamental rule being, innocent until proven guilty. In fact, most people probably know about this principle. For some reason however, it's often immediately forgotten about in a fit of righteous indignation when the 'evil jury' in defiance of 'justice' outrageously come up with the 'wrong decision'.



...which she was found not guilty of.

Hence, got away with it!!

[G]

Originally Posted by Jester666

Hence, got away with it!!

Exactly....which is crazy

I dont claim to know any more about the justice system than the next person, but its clear to see that its very wrong and that she has got away with nothing other than guilt.

Originally Posted by Jester666

What do you mean by "she didn't get away with anything"?

As far as I can work out, aquitted is basically getting let off with no punishment.
This is what has happened in this case despite the following >>

1. Left in charge of a minor
2. Proved to be under the influence of drugs and alcohol
3. In charge of a banned breed and dangerous dog

That's what we know to have happened based on the selective information that we've been given. For all you know there could well be mitigating factors that havn't been made public.

Originally Posted by Jester666

Hence, got away with it!!

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

Exactly....which is crazy

I dont claim to know any more about the justice system than the next person, but its clear to see that its very wrong and that she has got away with nothing other than guilt.

Are you such fools that you consider it right to judge people guilty after they've been found innocent?

[G]

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

Are you such fools that you consider it right to judge people guilty after they've been found innocent?

Why is that so foolish, double jeopardy wasnt scrapped within the uk for fun, it was scrapped because jurys CAN be very wrong.

Anyway I can see this topic will sooner or later take a turn for the worse as I dont like being called a fool and will end up taking it personally, so I will bow out of the topic lol .

Originally Posted by Flamin_Squirrel

That's what we know to have happened based on the selective information that we've been given. For all you know there could well be mitigating factors that havn't been made public.




Are you such fools that you consider it right to judge people guilty after they've been found innocent?

1. For all you know there may not be. What mitigating factors could there possibly be for being drunk and stoned whilst in charge of a minor, never mind the dog!?

2. Given the information the has been available yes I do think its right. Its not as though a jury ever made a mistake is it? Guildford 4 & Birmingham 6 ring any bells? Derek Bentley?

Because we live in a country that allows free thought and speech I am allowed to have an opinion. In MY opinion she has got away with manslaughter.

Please remember people that within the structure and guideline of the charges against this woman the key element of "intent" was not proven.

Taken that we have only been fed the more "scandalous" details I can understand people,(particularly parents) being outraged that such a catalogue of irresponsible behaviour which in part or whole led to the death of an innocent young child.

If we simply learn the consequences of such irrational or wreckless behaviour and no child ever suffers the same plight, then Ellie has not been lost in vain.

Originally Posted by Pedrosa

Please remember people that within the structure and guideline of the charges against this woman the key element of "intent" was not proven.

Taken that we have only been fed the more "scandalous" details I can understand people,(particularly parents) being outraged that such a catalogue of irresponsible behaviour which in part or whole led to the death of an innocent young child.

If we simply learn the consequences of such irrational or wreckless behaviour and no child ever suffers the same plight, then Ellie has not been lost in vain.

Well put!!

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

Why is that so foolish...

Because you're advocating mob justice, a return to witch hunts, all of which we've spent hundreds of years developing a justice system that gets away from all of that.

Originally Posted by graemepaterson

...double jeopardy wasnt scrapped within the uk for fun, it was scrapped because jurys CAN be very wrong.

Double jeopardy has got nothing to do with jurys making a wrong decision at all. It was scraped because the police and CPS are becoming increasingly incompetant, and when they inevitably bungle a case it means they get another bite at the cherry.

Yes it's possible that it'll do some good in that a guilty person acquitted in a previous trial may eventually be convicted. However the negative results will be far worse.

1) Innocent people will inevitably be dragged through multiple trials.
2) Police/CPS get even more sloppy in their work, knowing that they no longer have to get it right first time can pull new evidence out of their **** at a later date.
3) Increased legal costs of bringing more trials to court.

The bottom line is, the greatest injustice is to lock up an innocent person, not to let a guilty person go. This is why the burden of proof lays so heavily on the prosecution. ANY DOUBT means not guilty, and this is ultimately the reason this seemingly guilty woman was found not guilty.

Originally Posted by Pedrosa

Please remember people that within the structure and guideline of the charges against this woman the key element of "intent" was not proven.

Taken that we have only been fed the more "scandalous" details I can understand people,(particularly parents) being outraged that such a catalogue of irresponsible behaviour which in part or whole led to the death of an innocent young child.

If we simply learn the consequences of such irrational or wreckless behaviour and no child ever suffers the same plight, then Ellie has not been lost in vain.

Not sure but I though manslaugher was killing someone thorogh your actions (or lack of), isn't intent to kill murder. Dosn't this case come under crimial negligence?

Originally Posted by tomjones2

Not sure but I though manslaugher was killing someone thorogh your actions (or lack of), isn't intent to kill murder. Dosn't this case come under crimial negligence?

Perhaps it does fall in to that category, but it was deemed more appropriate by the CPS tp persue a charge of manslaughter. Just maybe some more *fitting* punishment might have been metered out should the Criminally Negligent charge have been preferred? Who knows? I am certainly no expert who can define which charge the details fitted best.