|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Justice (for the 96)
|
Sipech
Shipmate
# 16870
|
Posted
After yesterday's verdict that the 96 victims of the Hillsborough disaster were unlawfully killed, there was much talk of justice.
But what does justice look like and what are really asking for when we say that we want justice? Is there one such thing as justice, or is it a catch-all word that encapsulates a wide variety of different things?
I heard one comment that justice looked like an old Scouser grandmother grandmother kicking Kelvin MacKenzie in the stomach. I can't help but think that that lacks a certain amount of grace.
But then does grace belong with justice, or are they opposites?
This might be wider than just Hillsborough, but it seems like a reasonable starting to point to ground the conversation in, before it gets too abstract.
--------------------
I try to be self-deprecating; I'm just not very good at it.
Twitter: http://twitter.com/TheAlethiophile
Posts: 3791 | From: On the corporate ladder | Registered: Jan 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
There can never be justice. But there can be more justice than there previously was.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
I was thinking yesterday how we tend to (naturally, I might add) imbibe juries with good sense and intelligence when they agree with us and our sense of justice. The implication being that if they hadn't gone the right way, they'd be thick, uncaring bastards - rather than fixtures of a totally broken and incompetent legal system.
Of course, that's not to take away from the tragic events, the police cover-up and the false accusations levelled unfairly by the establishment in this country.
One only has to read older reports of tragedies (for example I've been reading about mining disasters and investigations which killed hundreds of people each time) to see how victims and working people got stitched up by the official system in the UK time and time again. Lied to, fobbed off, ignored, punished even.
It seems to me that long, expensive tribunals are not the way to give justice. There is no reason why any one of the families of the victims had to wait this long to hear the chief policeman admit to lying, to hear Tory politicians apologise when their forebears blamed the victims or to see Murdoch's newspapers admit to being totally totally wrong. There is no reason why evidence this compelling needed to be tested by this kind of judicial setting nor to need a jury's whim to decide upon things that seem plainly obvious to everyone.
And best of all, this wasn't even a criminal trial but simply the equivalent of a coroner's court. So doesn't inevitably mean anything with regard to prosecutions of those involved.
It beggars belief.
[ 27. April 2016, 13:23: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
I dimly remember Hillsborough but my knowledge of what happened is based on reading the BBC this morning. As I understand it on the day the facilities for the Liverpool spectators were inadequate both in terms of safety once in and speed of getting in. The policeman in charge made an awful mistake in opening a gate to speed things up so that a crowd surged in and the tragedy happened. If the policeman had admitted his mistake then it would have been a terrible tragedy and he might have been guilty of negligence but we wouldn't still be picking over this 27 years on.
Except there's another part about proper medical provision not being there to look after the injured. Was that someone's mistake or deliberate failure?
And lastly (again noting that I'm pretty ignorant on all this) what was so terrible was the lies and cover up and smears so that for a quarter of a century the story was that the crowd broke down the gate and caused the tragedy themselves. So justice for that part of what happened means a full admission of having lied/covered up/smeared innocent people and possibly punishment.
So where I'm going with this is that the Hillsborough tragedy isn't one big thing that needs one big "justice" but lots of different actions by different people which might need different kinds of responses now.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
It will be justice when the Establishment realises that they can no longer lie, obfuscate and manipulate in order to cover up their deep contempt for ordinary people, especially, it would seem, if they come from the great city of Liverpool. As for Duckenfield, I think everyone can understand, even if they can't excuse, the paralysing panic that beset him as the situation unfolded. But who understands why he sought to blame the victims? Deliberate lies are not a mistake or a failure of judgement.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It will be justice when the Establishment realises that they can no longer lie, obfuscate and manipulate in order to cover up their deep contempt for ordinary people, especially, it would seem, if they come from the great city of Liverpool. As for Duckenfield, I think everyone can understand, even if they can't excuse, the paralysing panic that beset him as the situation unfolded. But who understands why he sought to blame the victims? Deliberate lies are not a mistake or a failure of judgement.
It was stated on the news yesterday that in the midst of the disaster, a police photographer was sent outside to look for evidence of the crowd consuming things they should not have, and victims apparently were asked how much they'd been drinking.
Now, of course, I wasn't there or following the detail of this tribunal so have no idea who was responsible for what error and what effect it had.
But it seems to me that there is pretty good evidence here that the victim-blaming was happening soon after it happened.
And the sad truth is that whoever it was that was responsible, they've probably now been able to get away with it because nobody believed the victims for such a long time.
[ 27. April 2016, 13:37: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As for Duckenfield, I think everyone can understand, even if they can't excuse, the paralysing panic that beset him as the situation unfolded. But who understands why he sought to blame the victims?
I suppose in the climate he was operating in at the time he thought he could get away with it. As indeed he did for a long time.
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Raptor Eye
Shipmate
# 16649
|
Posted
Justice looks like the truth, recompense, and reconciliation, and yes like grace. It doesn't look like vengeance, which is nearly always nasty in human hands (or feet).
--------------------
Be still, and know that I am God! Psalm 46.10
Posts: 4359 | From: The United Kingdom | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Justice looks like the truth, recompense, and reconciliation, and yes like grace. It doesn't look like vengeance, which is nearly always nasty in human hands (or feet).
Justice is what love looks like in public.
The families deserve to see those who allowed their relatives to die held to account. That isn't vengeance.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bibaculus
Shipmate
# 18528
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Justice looks like the truth, recompense, and reconciliation, and yes like grace. It doesn't look like vengeance, which is nearly always nasty in human hands (or feet).
Justice is what love looks like in public.
The families deserve to see those who allowed their relatives to die held to account. That isn't vengeance.
But what does 'held to account' mean? Getting atThe Facts? (which seems to have happened). Prosecuting The Guilty? (which may well happen). Apologies and group hugs? (Which isn't going to happen). Cries of 'I hope they rot in hell'? (Which frequently happens, and probably will here).
--------------------
A jumped up pantry boy who never knew his place
Posts: 257 | From: In bed. Mostly. When I can get away with it. | Registered: Dec 2015
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
I think the reason there is talk of “justice” for the 96 is the abuse of power.
South Yorkshire Police (who have now been subject to so many scandals I sometimes wonder how they haven’t been disbanded) were supposed to be a trustworthy authority there to serve the public. They shamelessly abused this position to cover up their own incompetence and shift the blame onto the very people they should have been protecting.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
I dimly remember Hillsborough but my knowledge of what happened is based on reading the BBC this morning.
I was in Liverpool at the time. I know people were there. A lad in the junior church is one of the 96. The impact on the city of not only the tragedy but the way the establishment closed ranks was palpable. A friend from Liverpool shared this on Facebook.
quote:
When justice is won, the only freedom it really delivers is the freedom to start the clocks again, not turn them back. The freedom to carry on, in a world where loved ones have been taken before their time.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
M.
Ship's Spare Part
# 3291
|
Posted
I don't disagree with what anyone's posted about Hillsborough.
But looking more generally, and echoing Mr Cheesy, it does sometimes seem that for some people, justice is me getting what I want.
I'm a lawyer and used to hear a lot (not much these days, for some reason - perhaps people have learned they'll get short shrift), '...and there's not a court in the land that would disagree with me!' Er - I think you'll find there is, and them disagreeing with you does not make them corrupt or unjust.
M.
Posts: 2303 | From: Lurking in Surrey | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I think it's that feeling - frightening at the time - of the Establishment closing ranks, to blame the fans, which will stay with me. I think it could easily happen again.
The police, the media, politicians (with honourable exceptions), all joined in talking about drunken yobs breaking down a gate, when in fact, the police had opened it, thus releasing fans into already crowded areas.
Some of the desperate images from that day - a solitary ambulance trundling over the pitch, while fans carried bodies on improvised stretchers; people trying to resuscitate lifeless bodies on a football pitch; the police forming a line across the pitch, in case opposing fans started a fight.
I suppose it was a combination of panic, leading to multiple mistakes, followed by the lies, as a corrupt and amateurish police leadership tried to cover their own tracks.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Helen-Eva:
And lastly (again noting that I'm pretty ignorant on all this) what was so terrible was the lies and cover up and smears so that for a quarter of a century the story was that the crowd broke down the gate and caused the tragedy themselves. So justice for that part of what happened means a full admission of having lied/covered up/smeared innocent people and possibly punishment.
What is shocking is that the Taylor report, produced not long after the disaster, confirmed that police errors were to blame and that the fans weren't - but for some reason nothing ever went any further. Successive Home Secretaries repeated there was insufficient justification for another inquest or inquiry. Then Andy Burnham, who is from Liverpool, ordered the release of more papers. Suddenly records and witnesses magically became available revealing that police statements were altered, and that the police prevented ambulances from entering the grounds with the consequence that 40-odd people who could have been saved weren't. Why was none of this available in the first place?
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
It will be justice when the Establishment realises that they can no longer lie, obfuscate and manipulate in order to cover up their deep contempt for ordinary people, especially, it would seem, if they come from the great city of Liverpool.
Exactly this - along with all who agreed with them, no questions asked. Including the appalling media reaction.
quote:
As for Duckenfield, I think everyone can understand, even if they can't excuse, the paralysing panic that beset him as the situation unfolded. But who understands why he sought to blame the victims? Deliberate lies are not a mistake or a failure of judgement.
All I can conclude is that he didn't care a jot about the victims or their relatives, just his own skin.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I remember this being reported in Canada at the time. We were given the clear understanding that the physical structure of the stadium was deficient, and were provided an understanding that the fault was secondarily police/emergency services and fans.
The backgrounding news report discussed it and the 1984 Bhopal industrial chemical leak (which killed 3-8000 people) in India. The point made was that those who are powerful and wealthy usually can escape consequences. Justice delayed for nearly 30 years looks like justice denied to me.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's quite likely also that there was a police culture of save your own skin, blame somebody else, and close ranks. It's possible that there still is, and in other institutions also.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
I was thinking yesterday how we tend to (naturally, I might add) imbibe juries with good sense and intelligence when they agree with us and our sense of justice. The implication being that if they hadn't gone the right way, they'd be thick, uncaring bastards - rather than fixtures of a totally broken and incompetent legal system.
Indeed. Had the jury ruled the other way, would any of those calling for justice have been satisfied? Of course not - because to them "justice" means "agreeing with what we all know happened". The jury wasn't there to decide what the truth of the matter was, they were there to give legal confirmation to what everyone else knows was the truth of the matter.
Of course, in this instance I think that version of "justice" is the truth of the matter. But it's worrying to think of what might happen if (when) that version of "justice" is actually not the truth. "Everybody knows that's what happened" is a lousy way to define criminal guilt.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I remember the people of Nottingham the following week, gathered in silence in the centre of the city. I was at the University on a Quaker weekend, and it had been planned to have a silent meeting there before the Mayor called for a two minute silence there. An alternative site was found, but some felt that joining the city's demonstration was better.
It was the deepest, most powerful silence I have known, and it could have gone on much, much longer. It seemed awkward for the Mayor to stop it.
It was a silence which should have been heard by those determined to destroy Liverpool, but who then heard the voices of the common people, or their silences? They heard the lies they wanted to hear.
[ 27. April 2016, 16:06: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, in this instance I think that version of "justice" is the truth of the matter. But it's worrying to think of what might happen if (when) that version of "justice" is actually not the truth. "Everybody knows that's what happened" is a lousy way to define criminal guilt.
Thanks, that's kindof what I was meaning. I think there is a bit of distance between being a family member steadfastly saying "I was there and I know x happened" and praising a jury when the "correct" judgement is given.
Of course I understand the feeling and I can appreciate that such things are said in the heat of the moment. I was just reflecting on how the way it is perceived might impact on a jury. Maybe it was the wrong moment to vocalise that reflection, I certainly am not meaning to imply that the families are wrong to seek the truth and justice.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
It was a silence which should have been heard by those determined to destroy Liverpool, but who then heard the voices of the common people, or their silences? They heard the lies they wanted to hear.
The question still remains as to why the general public were subjected to these lies. I don't believe it was done to save the skin of one person who made one terrible decision. Hillsbourgh was an accident waiting to happen. Everything that has come out since leaves me thinking that a fan blaming agenda was already pre-constructed for when it did happen.
We are inclined to forget that in the 80s British soccer was in the midst of 25 year reign of match related disorder which the authorities were struggling to contain. People were therefore more than ready to believe Hillsbourgh was a case of the fans bringing it on themselves. However once true course of events was make clear most came to see the dreadful event as a tragedy for which no one person, or group of people, was solely responsible.
As for Justice? Justice can mean different things to different people, clearly this inquiry meant a great deal to the relatives involved and, as has been said 'this isn't the end of it'. The rest of us prefer it when the truth is out.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Indeed. Had the jury ruled the other way, would any of those calling for justice have been satisfied? Of course not - because to them "justice" means "agreeing with what we all know happened". The jury wasn't there to decide what the truth of the matter was, they were there to give legal confirmation to what everyone else knows was the truth of the matter.
Of course, in this instance I think that version of "justice" is the truth of the matter. But it's worrying to think of what might happen if (when) that version of "justice" is actually not the truth. "Everybody knows that's what happened" is a lousy way to define criminal guilt.
FWIW I was a little uneasy about the JUSTICE banners that were flown from St George's Hall when the verdict was announced. Partly because the building is owned by the city council, making it a potential interference by the executive into the judiciary, and partly because it implies the possibility of an alternative STITCHUP banner if the verdict had gone the other way.
But there are a number of reasons why I think your post is unfair:
1. This was an inquest, not a trial. It did NOT establish criminal guilt, it only established that a crime had happened. You will notice that the Hillsborough families are saying justice has been done before a single prosecution has even been opened.
2. The essential facts of the case, if not the details, were already in the public domain thanks to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, but that inquiry had no legal force, which is why the reopened inquests were necessary. To that extent, 'the jury were there to give legal confirmation to what everyone else knows was the truth of the matter', which I assume you meant sarcastically, is not far removed from a correct description of their role.
3. As mr cheesy says, 'there is a bit of distance between being a family member steadfastly saying "I was there and I know x happened" and praising a jury when the "correct" judgement is given' -- it is worth remembering just how large the former category is; I should think most people in Liverpool know someone who was there and whose account they trust.
[ 28. April 2016, 05:30: Message edited by: Ricardus ]
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
FWIW I was a little uneasy about the JUSTICE banners that were flown from St George's Hall when the verdict was announced. Partly because the building is owned by the city council, making it a potential interference by the executive into the judiciary, and partly because it implies the possibility of an alternative STITCHUP banner if the verdict had gone the other way.
Yes, tricky. I'm not sure what to think about that. Again, it worries me that potentially juries and judges could be swayed by the public perception of what happened and the personal consequences of deciding the thing in the wrong way.
I didn't follow the inquests at all - but as a non-legal novice it seems at least plausible that the jury could have decided that the thing was a total accident without any specific cause and exacerbated by errors which could not have been foreseen.
It seems a bit harsh if they had made that judgement to then imply that such a verdict was a stitch up.
On the other hand, maybe the jury in this situation was just acting as a mouthpiece of the people in general and it didn't really matter what they'd concluded. The evidence is on the public record and lies have been admitted. Maybe in one sense that is justice in that even if nothing else happens, the truth has been admitted by those who were there and closest to it (ie that police made a critical error, lied about it and tried to blame the victims for it). And so all those who tried to suggest that the crush was caused by drunken louts are disproved by the best available evidence in public.
quote:
But there are a number of reasons why I think your post is unfair:
1. This was an inquest, not a trial. It did NOT establish criminal guilt, it only established that a crime had happened. You will notice that the Hillsborough families are saying justice has been done before a single prosecution has even been opened.
Well OK, I guess that could be a way to read Marvin's post, but I read the final sentence as being a comment on the practice of law not this inquest in particular.
It seems to me that we are here caught in a cleft stick. On the one hand, it seems a bizarre notion of justice if a court cannot accept something which was witnessed by many, which was recorded by TV cameras and which was admitted by those who made contrary statements at the time.
If we're into the business of thinking that the police/military/mineowners (thinking again of the 19 century inquests I've been studying) couldn't possibly have been acting from the worst motives and therefore that the truth cannot have been as it appears to the general population then it is hard to think that this is justice either.
When the mines blew up in South Wales, there were inquests which regularly found nobody to blame. Mineowners were free to continue with the most basic of health and safety improvements and the grieving were given very minor compensation payments. Terrifyingly, the accidents just kept happening.
In my view, from a distance of 200 years, it is hard to describe these inquests as justice.
In several generations, will this inquest with all the monies and time spent on it be considered justice?
quote:
2. The essential facts of the case, if not the details, were already in the public domain thanks to the Hillsborough Independent Panel, but that inquiry had no legal force, which is why the reopened inquests were necessary. To that extent, 'the jury were there to give legal confirmation to what everyone else knows was the truth of the matter', which I assume you meant sarcastically, is not far removed from a correct description of their role.
Again, I plead ignorance, but did the police admissions come out at the MIP? I understood that they only came at this panel due to dogged interrogation by the barristers of those in charge under oath.
quote:
3. As mr cheesy says, 'there is a bit of distance between being a family member steadfastly saying "I was there and I know x happened" and praising a jury when the "correct" judgement is given' -- it is worth remembering just how large the former category is; I should think most people in Liverpool know someone who was there and whose account they trust.
To me the issue is that it took the longest coroner's inquest in history to get this result. It strikes me that there must have been at least as much evidence as remains today at the time - and hence it took a considerable effort by the justice system to ignore the evidence and to persist with the belief in the police and the authorities.
That's the real problem here; it might well be the case that there remains insufficient evidence to achieve the standards of legal proof against any individual.
Once again, the establishment has been proven to have been acting to protect its own. We'd rather not face the truth or have to account for our actions (in this, in the various terrible child abuse cases and so on), they seem to be saying, because that would jeopardise our position of power in society - and we can't have that.
Instead, the "little people" are expendable, ignorable, blameable. Also taxable and disposable.
It takes a huge effort to ever hold the establishment to account and the time it is, it largely doesn't matter. They seem to believe that the fact football grounds have had their safety improved and that long-retired senior policemen are held to account - in the vaguest of senses - is sufficient to close the book on these unnecessary deaths.
That, I'm afraid, is the real problem here. If you or I had been so incompetent as to cause an accident on the motorway killing a coachload of pensioners whilst fiddling with a mobile phone, it is extremely hard to imagine us avoiding prosecution for 20+ years. If we make statements about dead politicians or make silly jokes about airports on twitter, we face jail time in short order. If we are caught up in a riot and unwisely take a bottle of water from a broken shop window, we establishment punishes us to the full extent allowable under the law.
But if we're actually part of the establishment which allows people to die because we don't happen to like football fans, which publishes untrue allegations in national newspapers about those fans, which lies to our faces on national television, which writes horrible letters to the victims' families - apparently on behalf of the Prime Minister of the time - nothing happens.
You sit pretty for 20 years, and if you are really unlucky you might have to answer some uncomfortable questions in a courtroom which has no jurisdiction to punish you. For the vast majority of those who hold power in this situation as with many others, absolutely nothing negative happens to you at all.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
On the other hand, maybe the jury in this situation was just acting as a mouthpiece of the people in general
Of course, in a sense that's what a jury is supposed to be. You take x members of the public and show them the evidence and let them draw their conclusions on behalf of people in general, in theory at least if you take any group of people and show them the same evidence they'll reach the same conclusion.
The problem comes when the jury walks into the court on day one of the inquest or trial having already had some access to the evidence and conscious of the views of large parts of the population. But, in a case like this I can't see how that can be avoided and you just hope that the jury tries their best to form their verdict on what they've heard and their deliberations without the influence of 20 years of media coverage.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, in a sense that's what a jury is supposed to be. You take x members of the public and show them the evidence and let them draw their conclusions on behalf of people in general, in theory at least if you take any group of people and show them the same evidence they'll reach the same conclusion.
Yes, it appears to be based on the idea from Greek philosophy that "the ethical" is whatever a group of right-minded Greeks agree it is.
The problem is that this doesn't work. Unqualified people asked to make judgements on complicated cases often make mistakes and are swayed by the powers of rhetoric of those making the arguments rather than the evidence.
Unfortunately the system of judiciary (which make the vast majority of decisions in this jurisdiction) who are supposed to be trained professionals obviously also is fatally flawed in that they're also part of the establishment.
quote:
The problem comes when the jury walks into the court on day one of the inquest or trial having already had some access to the evidence and conscious of the views of large parts of the population. But, in a case like this I can't see how that can be avoided and you just hope that the jury tries their best to form their verdict on what they've heard and their deliberations without the influence of 20 years of media coverage.
And that's another reason why this system doesn't work. It isn't reasonable to expect people in today's world to make judgements only based on what they hear in the courtroom. Life just isn't like that any more.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
So, are you suggesting we abandon trial by jury? If so, what would you replace it with?
IMO, there are two major factors to consider. First that whatever trial system there is it absolutely has to be fair. And, second it has to be seen to be fair and accepted as fair by the general population.
Jury trials can sometimes fail on the first point - when the jury doesn't understand complex issues, or is swayed by rhetoric rather than evidence. But, one of the roles of the judge is to try and limit those effects, the judge is there to see that the trial is conducted in a manner that allows the jury to produce a fair verdict (at least, that was how the sheriff described his role both times I was called to jury service and could attend).
On the second point, I can't think of anything that could surpass a jury trial when it comes to confidence that the trial has been as fair as it could be.
Of course, there are issues such as the prosecution failing to pass on evidence that might help the defense, police not following all valid lines of enquiry that might have indicated someone else was guilty etc. But, those are going to be the same whether you have a jury trial or a different sort of trial.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
... It isn't reasonable to expect people in today's world to make judgements only based on what they hear in the courtroom. Life just isn't like that any more.
Sorry. Have I read that right? So you want judges, juries etc to base their decisions on what they haven't heard in court.
What extraneous matter do you want them to take into account? 'He/she must be guilty or he/she wouldn't be here'. 'He/she must be guilty because they're working class/an upper class twit/black - choose your category.' Or 'because the Murdoch press/people on Facebook say they are'. Is that what you want? Or 'they can't be guilty because I was at school with their mother', or 'he belongs to the same lodge as me' or 'because members of the union should stick up for each other'. Which is it to be?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I plead ignorance, but did the police admissions come out at the MIP? I understood that they only came at this panel due to dogged interrogation by the barristers of those in charge under oath.
The fact that the police shouldn't have opened the turnstiles, should have closed a tunnel, and should have had a sufficient view from the control room was part of the Taylor Report in 1990. The fact that the police prevented ambulances from entering the stadium was revealed by the HIP.
In many ways this wasn't even a cover up - it was more of a 'we give such a small part of a shit that we're not even going to bother covering it up'.
I suppose my general point is that if two government inquiries say that Dr Black was killed with the revolver in the billiard room, one is not unduly usurping the function of the inquest jury if one claims that the only correct verdict is that Dr Black was unlawfully killed.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, are you suggesting we abandon trial by jury? If so, what would you replace it with?
Of course, in a very large number of cases are not jury trials already.
Personally, I think trial by relevant experts is good enough for the IPCC and it ought to be good enough for legal trials.
Of course, I also appreciate that there are problems with this idea - such as who are the experts and how are they appointed - but those are also part of the current system.
quote:
IMO, there are two major factors to consider. First that whatever trial system there is it absolutely has to be fair. And, second it has to be seen to be fair and accepted as fair by the general population.
Jury trials can sometimes fail on the first point - when the jury doesn't understand complex issues, or is swayed by rhetoric rather than evidence. But, one of the roles of the judge is to try and limit those effects, the judge is there to see that the trial is conducted in a manner that allows the jury to produce a fair verdict (at least, that was how the sheriff described his role both times I was called to jury service and could attend).
They would say that, of course. The reality is that the judge and expert witnesses have a massive impact on what is shown to the jury and therefore have a massive impact on the result. We all assume that the judges are fair and that juries come to fair decisions, but it appears that this is not the case.
quote:
On the second point, I can't think of anything that could surpass a jury trial when it comes to confidence that the trial has been as fair as it could be.
I guess you must be easily pleased. I wouldn't trust 12 ordinary people to make judgements on complicated science, so I can't really see why they should be expected to make judgements on complicated criminal trials.
quote:
Of course, there are issues such as the prosecution failing to pass on evidence that might help the defense, police not following all valid lines of enquiry that might have indicated someone else was guilty etc. But, those are going to be the same whether you have a jury trial or a different sort of trial.
This certainly is a problem of the adversarial system we're used to, but it doesn't have to be like that. If we were actually interested in getting to the truth and not about "winning", it is possible that the system would be much better.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Sorry. Have I read that right? So you want judges, juries etc to base their decisions on what they haven't heard in court.
I don't believe that it is possible for anyone to come to a jury without any influence from the outside and nor should it be expected that juries only make judgements based on what they hear.
In the simplest scenario, should a statistician be allowed to come to their own conclusions about the risks presented to them in a jury based their education and experience? According to the law they shouldn't, but as we know "experts" have been misleading juries with dodgy stats for many years, with corresponding miscarriages of justice.
The system appears to expect juries to be something they're not: stupid, untrained, inexperienced and generally ignorant of the world. Hence it seems to think that they can simply absorb the arguments presented and decide within a vaccum which they believe.
Reality is not like that.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, are you suggesting we abandon trial by jury? If so, what would you replace it with?
Of course, in a very large number of cases are not jury trials already.
It probably depends on what you mean by "a very large number" and "cases". In England and Wales (according to Wikipedia) the provision for trial without jury was only introduced in 2007, and then only in very restricted instances. That is for criminal trials in the Crown Court and for inquests where the death occurred in prison/police custody, or if there may be a case under health and safety legislation. So, that's all but a few cases for anything that is, or might be (in the case of inquests), a criminal charge. I can't imagine things being different in the rest of the UK.
quote:
The reality is that the judge and expert witnesses have a massive impact on what is shown to the jury and therefore have a massive impact on the result.
The expert witnesses are called by the prosecuting or defending lawyers, and so probably that should be the "judge and lawyers". The way the Sheriff explained proceedings at the start of jury service, his duty was to ensure things were fair and legal - so he could rule on whether evidence was relevant. But it was the duty of the lawyers to build the cases for the prosecution and defence. That includes asking sensible questions of witnesses (expert or otherwise) and calling their own witnesses (expert or otherwise).
quote:
We all assume that the judges are fair and that juries come to fair decisions, but it appears that this is not the case.
Who assumes that? The whole point of the legal system is to introduce checks and balances all over the place in recognition of the fact that judges and juries are not infallible and make mistakes. If judges are fallible and sometimes unfair, why would removing the jury change that? But, the jury makes the decisions tempering the influence of the judge. And, multiple people on the jury introduces the wisdom of the group to temper bias and fallibility of individuals. And, if all else fails there are courts of appeal.
quote:
I wouldn't trust 12 ordinary people to make judgements on complicated science, so I can't really see why they should be expected to make judgements on complicated criminal trials.
With some help, I see no reason why 12 ordinary people couldn't make a judgement on complicated science. Have someone who is gifted in communicating science explain the subject, on a one-to-few basis and given both time and willingness to try and understand and most people will be able to understand even very complicated things well enough to make a judgement. Give the jury that help too, and they'll be at least as able as anyone else to make a judgement. It requires the lawyers to do their job and question expert witnesses so that the jury understands. It requires the judge to explain the law (which is one of those things the Sheriff told us he will do). But, again if the officers of the court aren't doing their job properly in helping a jury understand a case then they're not likely to do their job any better without a jury present.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As for Duckenfield, I think everyone can understand, even if they can't excuse, the paralysing panic that beset him as the situation unfolded. But who understands why he sought to blame the victims? Deliberate lies are not a mistake or a failure of judgement.
One word: fear.
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It probably depends on what you mean by "a very large number" and "cases". In England and Wales (according to Wikipedia) the provision for trial without jury was only introduced in 2007, and then only in very restricted instances. That is for criminal trials in the Crown Court and for inquests where the death occurred in prison/police custody, or if there may be a case under health and safety legislation. So, that's all but a few cases for anything that is, or might be (in the case of inquests), a criminal charge. I can't imagine things being different in the rest of the UK.
Magistrates sit without juries. Appeal courts and higher courts sit without juries. Most coroners court cases sit without juries. Various other legal tribunals operate without juries.
I accept I was wrong in what I wrote before: what I meant was that the legal system already operates in many different avenues without juries.
I'll shut up now.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As for Duckenfield, I think everyone can understand, even if they can't excuse, the paralysing panic that beset him as the situation unfolded. But who understands why he sought to blame the victims? Deliberate lies are not a mistake or a failure of judgement.
One word: fear.
I think it's more complicated than that. There was a common mindset, that football fans were drunken yobs. So arguably the police were set up to stop fighting, not to ensure crowd safety.
So we see police with dogs being called out, and police lined up on the pitch, to stop opposing fans fighting, just as people were choking to death in the pens.
So the police were horribly unprepared to deal with safety issues. But they could not admit that - and here we get the very common motive of self-protection and closing ranks. At all costs, the police reputation had to be protected, and then politicians and the media swung into line with all the lies.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's more complicated than that. There was a common mindset, that football fans were drunken yobs. So arguably the police were set up to stop fighting, not to ensure crowd safety.
I think it goes beyond even that - after all, the tactics of crowd control were adopted quite widely in 80s UK, and the same force was also responsible for bad policing at Orgreave.
There was a time when working class people were openly spoken about as an 'other', and the police were quite happy to act as the enforcers of a set of policies that was ultimately going to impoverish them.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Liverpool forgive me. Hmmmm. They shouldn't. God does, that's His job, but Liverpool shouldn't be burdened with having to forgive anyone.
Liverpool, I'm so sorry for believing the lies 27 years ago.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think it's more complicated than that. There was a common mindset, that football fans were drunken yobs. So arguably the police were set up to stop fighting, not to ensure crowd safety.
I think it goes beyond even that - after all, the tactics of crowd control were adopted quite widely in 80s UK, and the same force was also responsible for bad policing at Orgreave.
There was a time when working class people were openly spoken about as an 'other', and the police were quite happy to act as the enforcers of a set of policies that was ultimately going to impoverish them.
Absolutely. Arguably, the police at that time were infected with the Tory anti-working class ideology, that working class people were the enemy within. Furthermore, the working class in Liverpool may have been seen with particular loathing.
This came out in the infamous Sun headline ('The Truth') and story, that fans were urinating on the police, pickpocketing the dead, and so on, because that's what people in Liverpool do.
Class war, eh?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Aye. It's like the propaganda of the deed that is the farce of The War on Drugs, which is a race war on top of class war.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Can I draw your attention to the letter halfway down this page, from Bill Taylor of Matlock, not only about what he saw on the day, but what he did not hear when he phoned his witness statement in.
Guardian letters
Scarey stuff. And apparently Blair was involved in preventing Andy Burnham setting up an inquiry in case it upset Murdoch.
I wish, at times, I believed in Hell. Perhaps a very long time in purgatory will do.
[ 28. April 2016, 16:04: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Owen Jones has an article somewhere in the Guardian about whether it could happen again. Well, assuming that the police are less corrupt, and less amateurish, possibly not.
However, as Owen says, you can't rule out an ideological tie-up between a right-wing government and police and media, over some issue. Immigration, for example.
I thought that Hillsborough was hell.
[ 28. April 2016, 16:28: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Owen Jones has an article somewhere in the Guardian about whether it could happen again. Well, assuming that the police are less corrupt, and less amateurish, possibly not.
I think that there is still a tendency to close ranks. It belies for me the talk of 'a few bad apples' - there is still a culture of support that tolerates such things. Which is in turn then tied into the modern tendency to spin via PR.
There was a closing of ranks after the De Menzes shooting - but it was the very well resourced PR/press group within the Met that was responsible for spreading various rumours about De Menzes (including the false charge that he had been a rape suspect). Similarly in the case of Tomlinson - or the much more recent case of the students arrested at SOAS (which went swimmingly until video evidence surfaced that proved that the officers were misrepresenting events).
quote:
However, as Owen says, you can't rule out an ideological tie-up between a right-wing government and police and media, over some issue.
TBH I don't really think it's gone away - generally the police have too often acted as praetorian guard for the interests of the powerful.
[ 28. April 2016, 17:22: Message edited by: chris stiles ]
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Not only could it happen again, I have no doubts whatsoever that it will. Maybe it won't be football supporters but, say, if Jeremy Hunt can pin the death of a single hospital patient on striking doctors, especially if the patient is a police officer, a soldier or a pregnant woman, he won't hesitate to do so for one moment. And the press (we know which papers) will print the story almost before they are asked to.
After all, it could be twenty-five years before the truth is out, by which time the lie will have served its purpose.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Why do some of you assume that it's only a right wing establishment that closes ranks to protect itself. Do you imagine that the KGB, the Stasi or the Chinese establishment would behave any differently?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do some of you assume that it's only a right wing establishment that closes ranks to protect itself.
I don't think anyone implied that. It just so happens that establishment in this country is largely right wing.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, the prime example of a left establishment protecting itself is the Soviets, who eventually became gangsters in their maintenance of power. Ditto Mao and his henchmen.
It's not a prerogative of the right, but in the UK, it's been the right who have called the shots.
Hillsborough is an interesting sub-text to Thatcherism, I bet she hated to see the topic discussed. Bernard Ingham's comments are quite well-known now, as he bought into the Sun line totally, and wrote a well-known letter to a Liverpool fan, about tanked-up yobs turning up late, blah blah blah.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do some of you assume that it's only a right wing establishment that closes ranks to protect itself. Do you imagine that the KGB, the Stasi or the Chinese establishment would behave any differently?
Or New Labour. ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I have only today put together two things, and wondered about what happened to people.
The day after the disaster at Heysel, my sister and I were driving up to walk over Kinder Scout, with my very young nieces. We stopped at a service station, where we saw a group of Liverpool supporters come in. We didn't know how to react. The group included youngsters, and were certainly not going to have been involved. But we had bought into the story, and where we might have shown sympathy to people who had been through something awful, we just walked past with eyes averted.
Those young lads might have been among the 96, or the fathers with them, and I have only now thought of that. I had forgotten the incident completely.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Why do some of you assume that it's only a right wing establishment that closes ranks to protect itself. Do you imagine that the KGB, the Stasi or the Chinese establishment would behave any differently?
Or New Labour. ...
Which wasn't exactly what I would call left wing.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
I was reading an article earlier called Hysel the 'the forgotten tragedy '. Wasn't aware that the account of the event at the time being flawed. It did after all result in a 5 year ban of English clubs from European tournaments.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
