Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37

Thread: Anonymity destroys justice

  1. #21
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    London, United Kin
    Posts
    3,896
    Rep Power
    9

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    I'm not at all convinced that there are that many cases of witness intimidation; it could well be a case where people are more fearful of the possibility than of the actuality. When I get some time I might see what I can find out.

    I don’t necessarily disagree but quite how you could quantify statistics, I don’t know. I would think that it is more prevalent in poor urban areas.

    I do think that there will be an increase in intimidation if witnesses can not give evidence annonmously

  2. #22
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    OK, sports fans. Here we go.

    Try this for some useful information.

    Quick notes:
    It's from the British Crime Survey of 1998.

    • 8% of incidents (vandalism, car crime, serious fight or assault) involved intimidation of witnesses.
    • 16% of intimidation involved assaults (1.3% of all incidents) and 13% involved criminal damage (1% of all incidents).
    • It was 'very exceptional' for anyone other than the perpetrator or his/her family to commit the intimidation.


    It does not bear out, therefore, the idea that there is wholesale, organised intimidation of witnesses for the purpose of persuading the witness not to give evidence.

    FAOD I am not suggesting that nothing needs to be done about witness intimidation, just that blanket anonymity offered to witnesses is not the answer. Since the problem is clearly not overwhelming, there seems no good reason to jump to knee-jerk solutions as our eeyore Home Secretary is doing.

    I would hope that there would be as much resistance to legislating for witness anonymity as there is to 42 days.

    PS there looked to be more recent stuff available from the National Archives web-site - except it's not possible to access the documents at the moment.

    Of course that sort of information is more easily available if you just travel around on trains waiting for somebody to leave a briefcase or a laptop behind...)

  3. #23
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    Pretty soon we'll be able to lock someone up as soon as the police have finalised their decision on who the prime suspect is.
    It was good enough for Tom Cruise in "Minority Report" (Coming soon to a country near you!)

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTramp View Post
    So, someone is being tried for murder. Someone who the witness knows runs in a gang, habitually carries around guns or knives. And has a lot of friends who do the same. Who are known to be 'nutcases'.

    Personally, without the promise of anonimity, I'm not going to make a witness statement. Even if they haven't actually threatened me.
    Annoyingly, I agree with both Barry and The Tramp.

    Anonymity in criminal trials is A Bad Thing and our personal liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate under this "government".

    But if it ever came right down to the crunch I really don't know if I would be brave enough to risk my own life/welfare and that of my family (which is quite extensive when it includes cousins and their children that I care about) to give evidence against serious organised violent criminals. And I'm sure I'm not alone, which does mean that intimidation will increase, whatever the past statistics show. I hope any eventual package/compromise includes increased penalties for witness intimidation, which strikes at the heart of criminal justice.

    Whats the situation in other countries? Is there some work-around that some basically liberal country has managed to develop?

  4. #24
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Maxine View Post
    I don’t necessarily disagree but quite how you could quantify statistics, I don’t know. I would think that it is more prevalent in poor urban areas.

    I do think that there will be an increase in intimidation if witnesses can not give evidence annonmously
    Witness intimidation has always been with us - it's not a new problem, it happens everywhere there are organised crime gangs. Obvious examples are the Mafia, the Krays, Chicago in the 20s, and so on.

    So it's not a new problem - I'm not convinced that it's a growing problem; but our government seems to want to make it seem like one. I'm seriously thinking of joining the David Davis Appreciation Society at this rate...

    And I never thought I'd see myself type those words

  5. #25
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    Annoyingly, I agree with both Barry and The Tramp.
    DoubleThink is alive and well 24 years after 1984!!
    Anonymity in criminal trials is A Bad Thing and our personal liberties are being eroded at an alarming rate under this "government".

    But if it ever came right down to the crunch I really don't know if I would be brave enough to risk my own life/welfare and that of my family (which is quite extensive when it includes cousins and their children that I care about) to give evidence against serious organised violent criminals. And I'm sure I'm not alone, which does mean that intimidation will increase, whatever the past statistics show. I hope any eventual package/compromise includes increased penalties for witness intimidation, which strikes at the heart of criminal justice.

    Whats the situation in other countries? Is there some work-around that some basically liberal country has managed to develop?
    What you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between largescale intimidation of witnesses by serious organised violent criminals and/or wholesale anonymity for witnesses. The decision is what to do about apparently minimal, undirected and disorganised intimidation probably by yobboes by way of reassuring witnesses that it is safe to give evidence.

  6. #26
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    What you are doing is setting up a false dichotomy. The choice isn't between largescale intimidation of witnesses by serious organised violent criminals and/or wholesale anonymity for witnesses. The decision is what to do about apparently minimal, undirected and disorganised intimidation probably by yobboes by way of reassuring witnesses that it is safe to give evidence.
    And what you are doing is setting up an inflated straw man to demolish in the hope that its inflation or its straw-ness will not be noticed.

    No-one (as far as I know) is suggesting that there is "largescale intimidation of witnesses by serious organised violent criminals", and equally, no-one (as far as I know) is advocating "wholesale anonymity for witnesses". The debate is surely about how far, if at all, the threat of one justifies the extent of the other.

    What I think most reasonable people are saying is that there is a problem (whose size is a matter for debate) and asking if there is a solution. If there is no solution within the law then we must either amend the law or accept that we have to live with the problem (which may or may not increase).

    I have given evidence for the prosecution in criminal trials on several occasions, and was not threatened with any intimidation - I am sure this is the norm (although I did watch my back for several weeks after!) But what I said in my post was that if it ever came to my family or me being threatened by serious organised violent criminals then I genuinely do not know what my reaction would be - I know what I would like it to be, but one never actually knows until put into a situation.

  7. #27
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by John S View Post
    And what you are doing is setting up an inflated straw man to demolish in the hope that its inflation or its straw-ness will not be noticed.

    No-one (as far as I know) is suggesting that there is "largescale intimidation of witnesses by serious organised violent criminals", and equally, no-one (as far as I know) is advocating "wholesale anonymity for witnesses". The debate is surely about how far, if at all, the threat of one justifies the extent of the other.
    You brought up 'serious organised criminals', and no-one least of all me is saying that all witness protection is a no-go, is so where's the straw man?
    It seems that the most overwhelmingly common form of witness intimidation consists of simple verbal abuse of the witness by the perpetrator "Snitch! Grass! Middle-class git!" rather than the far more nasty type that you focussed on.

  8. #28
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    You brought up 'serious organised criminals', and no-one least of all me is saying that all witness protection is a no-go, is so where's the straw man?
    It seems that the most overwhelmingly common form of witness intimidation consists of simple verbal abuse of the witness by the perpetrator "Snitch! Grass! Middle-class git!" rather than the far more nasty type that you focussed on.
    If I saw a known violent gangster related to someone that I was due to testify against smiling at me whilst standing outside the school gate as I collected my child I would feel intimidated. I am sure he would have a perfectly good reason for happening to be there.

    Just before my son was murdered he was in a shouting match in a busy pub with the two accused. Glasses were thrown. Nobody heard what was said. Nobody saw who threw what at whom. The girl that was with the accused would not give evidence. The forensic team found lots of blood at her flat, but it was neither my sons or the accused. The fingerprint of one of the accused was found on the wine bottle that delivered the first blow from behind, but he was found "Not guilty". The only peple that heard or saw anything of the actual assault in a quiet street were in the house adjacent and one some 50 yards away on the other side of the road and one thirty yards down the road, which has tightly packed houses and flats. There were dustbins knocked over and loud abuse as my son bled to death from a stab wound.

    Intimidation is a problem. Being intimidated is more of one. If people are afraid then they will become ruled by fear.

  9. #29
    Registered User John S's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Deepest, Darkest Fife
    Posts
    1,182
    Rep Power
    12

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by Barry Shnikov View Post
    ...........so where's the straw man?
    In your use on the one side of "LARGESCALE" (when referring to intimidation) and on the other side "WHOLESALE" (when referring to anonymity). Use of these adjectives considerably extended the two elements, way beyond what was being discussed, presumably deliberately.

    But we should not be holding an intellectual debate to score points off one another, we should be having an intelligent discussion on whether or not there is a problem, and if there is then whether there is a solution within the law, and if that solution is implemented then what (if any) side effects or unintended consequences there could be.

    Bigdjiver's post and personal input should put this into perspective, and kudos to him for it. Although I know that law should not be framed on individual cases, in the end we act and respond as individuals.

  10. #30
    The Forum Legend
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Nottingham
    Posts
    10,672
    Rep Power
    14

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Strangely, I also agree with both myself and Barry

    Barry has been arguing the extreme of one side, so, taking a contrary position, I argued the extreme of the other.

    I would hope that very few people would support anonymous witnesses in the case of "vandalism, car crime, serious fight or assault". I certainly wouldn't.

    However, in the case of more serious crimes, usually (although I imagine not exclusively) against the person, where serious intimidation could take place, then I think that there should be some system in place to protect witnesses. This is of course the area where this is mostly being discussed currently - for example, the murder trial that was abandoned earlier in the week. Not much more minor crimes.

    I also think that, if you have to resort to statistics that are (at least) 10 years out of date, Barry, you might as well not bother. I think that anyone who has any interest in the news and current affairs, is well aware that both serious and gang crime has risen a lot in the last 10 years. I would suggest that the situation now bears no resemblence to the situation then.

  11. #31
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTramp View Post
    I also think that, if you have to resort to statistics that are (at least) 10 years out of date, Barry, you might as well not bother. I think that anyone who has any interest in the news and current affairs, is well aware that both serious and gang crime has risen a lot in the last 10 years. I would suggest that the situation now bears no resemblence to the situation then.
    Hmm.

    Well, I wasn't 'resorting' to out-of-date statistics. They were the most recent I could find, given that the National Archives is - from an online point of view - shut.

    Which are the statistics to which you will resort in support of the assertion in your final sentence?

    Or are you relying on - oh, just the impression you get from the media?

  12. #32
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Known criminals accused in acts of violence have a track record. There are a lot of people who are willing to give false evidence to "put them away". Much as they may deserve a spell inside it is a sound priciple in our law that you are actually punished for crimes that you are proven to have commited. If the law protects even the worst in our society there is a good chance that it will protect us all.

    I have been in all aspects of this problem. I have had the local 15 year old villians, rehoused travellers, outside my house threatening to burn it down for giving first stopping them from vandalising a phone booth, and then giving a witness statement.

    I have been falsely accused and told I could expect to be remanded in custody for most of a year. with a very credible witness statement against me, given in error. It was only by remote chance that I had evidence available that proved I was totally innocent and the statement, given in error and in good faith was withdrawn. If I had not known who had given the statement I would not have known which intermediary to show that evidence and get it sorted out. The evidence was a phone recording and would not have been admissible.

    Many of our MP's are lawyers. All of them have constituents that complain to them. This measure is only being considered because intimidation and violence against witnesses is a real problem. For all of its faults our Government gets most of it as right as can be hoped for.

  13. #33
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    For clarification.

    I have no doubt that potential witnesses feel frightened about the possibility of suffering in some way at the hands of the perpetrator or his friends or family. What I am as-yet unconvinced of is that this fear is always justified, and that the possibility of serious repercussions is sufficiently real.

    "These are nasty people and I worry about what they would do if I gave evidence at trial" is not, in my view, an adequate reason to abandon the necessary protections provided to the defendant by the common law.

    On the other side of the coin we have to consider how many people have spent many, many years of their lives in prison for offences which, eventually, it was shown that they did not commit.

    In his book In the name of the law David Rose (then Home Affairs correspondent of the Observer) goes in significant detail into the case of Nick Treadaway, who was tortured into confessing to a crime by members of the West Midlands Serious Crime Squad. The method used by these police detectives was to put a plastic bag over his head and hold him down until he passed out. He signed the confession without waiting for them to render him unconscious for a second time.

    Treadaway was an ex-crook, and an ex-con; that's why he ended up in a police station in the first place. (It seems likely that he was trying to go straight, however.) 12 years later Mr Justice McKinnon, a High Court judge, found as a fact that the police witnesses had lied their heads off, solidly throughout those 12 years; the judge said he was 'satisfied' to a 'high degree of probability' that Treadaway's allegations were true, and awarded him £50,000 in damages.

    Now this interrogation took place before the Police and Criminal Evidence Act came into force; modern rules would make such events highly unlikely. And the WMSCS was later found to be riddled with unpleasant corruption from top to bottom.

    BUT

    The story illustrates the dangers of assuming that we don't have to be constantly on our guard against the possibility of injustice. This all happened at a time when I would have categorically stated that a British policeman would never do such a thing - a Mexican policeman, perhaps, or a Russian one, but not one of my country's treasured police force. I would have been wrong.

    There are no end of persons and organisations ranged against a citizen once he becomes suspected of a crime, substantial funds available to secure a conviction, and plenty of time to wrap up the case; and neither the Court, nor the government of the day, nor the police, nor the prosecution, nor the press (generally) have any interest in an acquittal. Even the LSC doesn't care about acquittal. The only people who do care are the accused, those close to him, and his lawyers.

    But we need to care. We need to care about victims, and witnesses, and people who just get dragged in for no concrete reason. But we all do care about them, and we know we do. We need to take into account the fact that Jack Straw, police Chief Constables, the CPS - none of these people are interested in the checks and balances that judges have pushed into our criminal justice system over the centuries, because their interest is in securing convictions.

  14. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Southampton
    Posts
    6,709
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    For all of its faults our Government gets most of it as right as can be hoped for.
    It isn't an easy job, I agree. But I can't go along with you - on criminal justice I believe that this government has been taking the easy path since 1997 - make it easier to convict, without giving thought to the long term effects of such changes. It's ironic to note that the great recent statutes protecting suspects are all conservative measures - PACE and so on.

    If they want to reduce crime, the biggest law-and-order measure which will succeed in doing that without doubt is decriminalising drugs. The only other ones would be proper handling of prisoners - especially prior to release - and ex-prisoners, especially those on licence.

    All other policies that would help are social ones - school, support for bored teenagers, better preparation for parenthood, and so on.

    So much cheaper just to legislate to clear away the fundamental protections against wrongful conviction. That also improves the statistics - double whammy!

  15. #35
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by TheTramp View Post
    I think that anyone who has any interest in the news and current affairs, is well aware that both serious and gang crime has risen a lot in the last 10 years.


    Looking here:
    http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdf...me0607summ.pdf (page 6)

    It appears that violent crime has gone down 41% in the last 10 years or so.

    Yes, it's levelling out, or possibly even increasing, over the past year or so, but it's not like it's a massive societal problem at the moment, despite the individual tragedies of youth violence.

    So I can't see any real need for emergency legislation based on a "massive crime wave threatening to engulf us all" - because there isn't one; the figures don't seem to support such an approach.

  16. #36
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    bedford
    Posts
    4,899
    Rep Power
    13

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by David Bailey View Post
    ...the figures don't seem to support such an approach.
    That would be the figures generated and supplied by a Government that wants to be re-elected ...

    e.g. I cannot make a doctors appointment for two days time. I have to ring up in two days time in the morning for one the same day. There may be rewards for the medical practise for generating figures that show reduced waiting lists.

    There was a murder trial a while back abandoned because the two main witnesses had suffered violent deaths. (which might have been unrelated).

  17. #37
    Formerly known as DavidJames David Bailey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Norf Lundin
    Posts
    17,001
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    18

    Re: Anonymity destroys justice

    Quote Originally Posted by bigdjiver View Post
    That would be the figures generated and supplied by a Government that wants to be re-elected ...
    As opposed to all those governments that don't want to be re-elected?

    But no, I think the survey's relatively independent and non-biased; it's been going a long time after all. So in the absence of contrary figures, I'd be inclined to treat it as OK.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Justice after all?
    By Gus in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 29th-December-2007, 12:49 AM
  2. Miscarriages of justice
    By Barry Shnikov in forum Chit Chat
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 17th-October-2007, 08:09 PM
  3. Anonymity and the Forum (again)
    By David Bailey in forum Forum technical problems / Questions / Suggestions..
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 4th-July-2007, 06:39 PM
  4. Anonymity and Identity
    By David Bailey in forum Geeks' Corner
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 2nd-October-2006, 08:55 PM

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •