Ian Brady

jalima I don't understand your comment (am I getting a bit lost here?) Ian Brady and Myra Hindley were both found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment; capital punishment had been abolished, so what else should have happened?

Or would some of you like a return to the lynch mob?
Certainly not, but I do like to know that justice is done.
When the evidence is overwhelming is it right or wrong that a case should be dismissed because one 'i' may not have been dotted in the myriad of evidence to be presented to the court?

I agree Christinefrance

I can't comment on Brady's mental health as I don't know enough or have the knowledge to decide. The fact remains that he indisputably murdered those children. You could argue that anyone committing such crimes must have a mental illness. However I think that once again the focus is on the perpetrator and not the victims. The public need to be protected from people like Brady, Sutcliffe etc and once their crimes are proven they should be confined for life no chance of parole. Capital punishment is not an option.

People do not 'get off' on 'minor technical errors of procedure'. A case may be dismissed because procedural rules necessary for the fair administration of justice are not followed. These rules are the bedrock of the rule of law and those charged with the administration of justice bear the responsibility for its proper administration. Or would some of you like a return to the lynch mob?

Luckylegs where has anyone said you are not Christian??

To get a guilty person off sentencing, is a gross miscarriage of justice. Don't know how lawyers that do that sleep at night. I would be ashamed.

Then I don't understand your question Mrsmopp

No.

Was Hindly's sentence a miscarriage of justice Mrsmopp?

Including Lord Longford, Annie?

But Jalima , it is what defence are paid to do and as unfair as it seems an error of procedure must exist for a reason

Mrsmopp, it was do Gooders who did and still do fight against miscarriages of justice

Jalima, I disagree. I had an ex-student (overseas) who became a defence lawyer, and he was able to get some clients off who had shoplifted but police gave prices from another store. His argument was that in those cases the defence lawyer serves an important role in tightening up police evidence, and I agree with him

I am talking about cases where the evidence of guilt is indisputable yet a barrister will try to get a client off on a minor technical error of procedure.

I wondered how long it would be before the term "do gooders" was used.

Our justice system, with all its imperfections, is better than a system in which "everybody knows he's/she's guilty so why bother about the technicalities".

That is true, but in the meantime a criminal could still be walking the streets and a danger to the public because of some minor technicality which matters not a jot and has nothing to do with the obvious guilt of the accused.

Lawyers getting their clients off on 'technicalities' is what makes (in the end) for good law - the legal system can't anticipate all possible defence manouevres.

I seem to remember Lord Longford visiting them both and getting involved in the case. Do Gooders, eh!

Jalima,we have had so many miscarriages of justice , some by defence not doing their job, police who have lied, juries who have allowed emotions to overcome facts. Our courts are not perfect are they

You are right, anniebach 'Getting off on a technicality' or a reduced sentence for a heinous crime for whatever reason is not justice and does not serve the general public well.

I agree Niggly,

Jalima , if the defence did as you say it wouldn't be justice

Chewbacca, I am not comparing the moors murderers with the children who killed James Bulger, I am comparing the reaction and behaviour of the public .

I do know details of the murders, my husband attended lectures by a person who worked on the cases, I read my husbands notes on the lectures and have always regretted doing so , they included details which were never reported in the press.

I can't imagine how I'd feel, it's too terrible to contemplate, but I do know that as a society we MUST abide by the law, however ghastly the situation we find ourselves in, be it all through gritted teeth. Not to do so would evoke mob rule, in other words anarchy. I remember, some years ago that a convicted terrorist was to be deported. Mrs May, to her credit, as I understand it, went through every last detail with regard to the legalities before deporting this person which although frustrating, was, in a civilised society, the correct thing to do. Let's hope that same commitment bears well for brexit negotiations.

Chewbacca I agree with your last post - and, of course, there are others like them, sadly.

Typo sorry, Jamie Bulger not Burger.