[Magdalen] Heather Cook

[Roger Stokes]

On 07/06/2015 12:32, Jim Guthrie wrote:
> From: Grace Cangialosi
>
>> Well, I think I understand, Jim, but it just doesn't seem fair for 
>> the family to have to keep waiting for one delay after another when 
>> there's no uncertainty >about guilt.
>
> One of the things that is forgotten in this self-indulgent era is that 
> this is a nation  of laws. And that means emotions of families should 
> have nothing whatsoever to do with justice. I realize we live in an 
> era where emoting at Victims Impact hearings (a sure sign of the 
> decline of laws into something of a localized mobocracy. And this is 
> aided and abetted by TV reporters looking for profitable emotional 
> outbursts, "How do you feel seeing your child burned to death in that 
> house fire?"

I totally agree and regret the introduction of victim impact statements 
this side of the pond.  Yes, they give victims the opportunity to vent 
their feelings but the sentencing should be as dispassionate as possible 
- related purely to the facts of the case and an impartial reasonable 
person's view of it.  The victim's need to express their emotions should 
be done at an earlier stage and in private counselling.

>
>> I can't say I understand the whole plea system, except that it's 
>> designed to get the least possible penalty for the guilty party, 
>> which, course, is what she's
>
> Nope -- a plea bargain is designed to get the best outcome for all 
> concerned --  the guilty, the victims, the law and the state.

There is also the concept of restorative justice where, in suitable 
cases, the perpetrator meets with the victim or somebody who has 
experienced a similar crime so that they can hear what effect their 
criminality has had on innocent people.  Handled properly it is not an 
easy option, though it can lead to a reduced sentence, but a step 
towards rehabilitation of the offender.

>
>> paying the lawyers for. But why can't they go into the courtroom, 
>> provide whatever evidence they have, have a judge or jury declare her 
>> guilty, since that's >not an issue, and then hammer out whatever 
>> deals they want without keeping the family on the string?
>> It would be different if they didn't know what happened or who the 
>> driver was, of course.
>
> Taxpayers wouldn’t stand for the costs if this was done everywhere. 
> And as I said, the family has nothing to do with it under the rule of 
> law, however modified and stretched by the current cultural milieu.

Quite, coming through the court door starts the costs ramping up. You 
have the personnel necessary for a trial to pay for a start and the 
presentation of the different sides will involve more lawyers' time than 
if they can deal with it through correspondence and relatively informal 
"without prejudice" meetings.

This is also closer to the basic biblical approach to justice - 
restoring things to how they should been. Clearly it is impossible to 
restore the life of someone who has died but the sentence handed down by 
the judge shoukd reflect the significance of the damage imparted.  Some 
direct financial compensation to the victim's family is also probably 
through the civil, as opposed to the criminal, courts.

>
>> Good thing I'm not a lawyer. I could never defend someone I knew to 
>> be guilty...
>
> Agreed.
>
> But as the Miranda warning -- the law of the land -- says . . . . As a 
> nation we long ago decided our Constitution demands representation for 
> both guilty and innocent persons.

Indeed, in the principle of justice they are also entitled to 
appropriate representation.  One of the nig complaints about the 
criminal justice system in the USA (and I suspect it is heading the same 
way this side of the pond) is that those who cannot afford good legal 
representation are treated more harshly than those who can afford it.

Roger