I feel a moment of unaccustomed comradeship with you here. That's how I often feel when debating against you :wink:
Printable View
What do you think of the new "plans" to get rid of these monolithical police stations, and to instead have small local ones?You're welcome. You do seem rather green and honest for a lawyer.Quote:
Oh, well, very grateful I’m sure.
You managed. :lol:Quote:
(Yeah, you have to spell properly, sweetie. Otherwise I can’t do the joke.)
That’s right, and some do pro Sting work
Is this why barristers prefer not to know?Quote:
Where a barrister does in fact know of his client’s guilt, he is ethically prevented from advancing to the court any argument to the effect that the client is NOT guilty. He is restricted to testing the evidence of the witnesses and suggesting that they are mistaken. He can say “I put it to you that you cannot be certain that it was my client” or “...that you did not in fact see my client”. He cannot say “My client was not there, was he?” still less “My client is innocent, therefore it cannot have been him that you saw.”
Also could the difference in terms used alert the judge to the guilt/innocence of the defendant? If so, can double bluffs work?It's common in London.Quote:
Also, it is not often that defence counsel turns up and is briefed there and then – unless it is a bail application or similar. Prosecution counsel is frequently a total stranger to the case – this is because of the inefficiency of the CPS.
I never knew that!Quote:
For example, enormous numbers of Brits labour under the misapprehension that judges have gavels. Only auctioneers have gavels in this country; however, TV directors ignore this fact of life because they also labour under a misapprehension – which is that a court without a gavel is less dramatic than a court with a gavel.
You are trained, we are not.
I'm absolutely against the state killing people because it is too cruel.
I'm coming from a specific angle. The amount of cruelty in a painless death sentence on the individual excuted can and should be limited (and that's why death row compunds my distaste of the American system of keeping people there for years).
But there's a clear moral difficulty I have with society taking it on themsleves for killing someone elses loved one. Let's set aside the problem of doing that by mistake which we'd do quite a lot.
For every executed person - there's an innocent mother, father, child or partner left behind to suffer for the rest of their lives. To justify the death penalty you MUST be able to justify inflicting the suffering on those people and indeed punishing them for a crime they did not commit.
The Wanderer
The Americans are leading the way :rolleyes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...aesthetic.html
Forgot to say, check out some of the comments posted by Dailymail Readers!!!!!!!!
ah lovely. Its amusing really, injections were surely brought in as a way to execute in a less violent way, because the U.S. is of course a civilised country :) A bullet in the head, would be cheaper and more humane but only barbaric countries would do THAT :rolleyes:
Well, lethal injection is cleaner (less/no blood) and the relatives can be given a relatively untouched body to bury. Of course that's not much help to the condemned man or woman who is murdered by the state.
It seems the UK once considered executions by lethal injection but couldn't take it any further when it became apparent that the British Medical Association didn't want to mix the two activities of saving lives and taking lives.
This website has a lot of interesting information. The witness account of someone killed by lethal injection is quite unpleasant to read. I'm so glad we don't do capital punishment in the UK.
http://www.capitalpunishmentuk.org/