Dobson and Norris - How long will they actually serve?
Posted by: Southweststokie on 04 January 2012
Naim guy's of the legal world, How long will they actually serve? As this is a minimum sentance do they still qualify to 'time off the sentance for good behaviour' or do they have to complete the so called minimum term? I would appreciate it if someone in the legal world could advise.
Thanks,
Ken
class="quotedText">
in general I think the idea of early release for good behaviour/remorse etc is a good thing. I also think that the idea of extended term is good if there is any sign of possible repeat offence.
however, in this particular case, i think a review of the initial sentence is also justified (assuming that is within the spirit of the current system, which I think it is)
but the primary question remains unclear, is the 15 years an absolute minimum or could it be reduced ? anybody ? Derry, you seem to be knowledgable on these things?
Cheers
Don
I am not a lawyer as they say. However the minimum term is exactly that. They must serve 15 and 14 years respectively before parole can be granted. Parole is granted on the basis that they are not likely to commit similar crimes. Given that they have not been convicted of similar (if any?) crime in the past 18 years one might assume they have already passed that test?
Here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Cr...ngtoprison/DG_196209
Bruce,
I don’t appear to have made my POV clear and I acknowledge that I am somewhat careless with my use of English.
The POV that I am making is that people are either presumed innocent or are proved guilty. IMHO these are “legal” terms and should not be confused with whether a person is innocent (ie factually did not commit the crime) or is guilty (ie factually did commit the crime).
There are plenty of examples where someone whois innocent (didn’t commit the crime) has been proved guilty and likewise plenty of people who continue to enjoy “legal” innocence but did commit the crime.
I consider it worth recognising this difference and being able to refer to these differences in discussion.
If there is some appropriate vocabulary to differentiate legal guilt from actual guilt etc, I would be happy to adopt its use.
I have just had a quick look at Wikipedia. It is clear that “proof” of legal guilt doesn’t have to be absolute. It does need to be beyond reasonable doubt, or some other standard of probability. It is also clear that legal innocence is likewise probabilistic eg that most people are innocent, hence the “presumption of innocence” at the start of any criminal trial.
Cheers
Don
Jeez. Thankfully, before I knew much about criminal law and I was studying for my law degree, Wikipedia wasn't around.
class="quotedText">
Here: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Cr...ngtoprison/DG_196209
Chief,
Perhaps you would like to expand on the word "Jeez" 'cos i'm dam certain that in many cases "proof" is based on probability. And i never studied law and am not even a lawyer.
Cheers
Don
Don, Apologies for the flip post earlier, sent from my phone whilst cooking and skimming through the posts, and spotting your Wikipedia line.
In short, in English criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the prosecution (hence the presumption of innocence) to prove what is commonly referred to as 'beyond reasonable doubt', as you've already acknowledged. Recently, juries have been directed that they must be 'sure' of the defendant's guilt. With respect, this often isn't the easiest area of law to grasp, especially if you haven't read the relevant case law.
Possibily a consequence of collating your information from various websites, I don't know, but some of your words even seem like they're taken from the law in other jurisdictions. While much of US law in this area may be similar, for instance, it isn't the same. Moreover, in discussing 'probability' and 'some other standard of probability', you may even appear to be referring to civil law at times, with its lesser standard, on the 'balance of probabilities'. Earlier you even wrote:
"My principal point is that in many, many cases, guilt or innocence is based on probability rather than absolutes and we should remember this when making judgements."
I recognise (as you do) that words may have a legal meaning beyond their common usage, and yes, proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean absolute certainty. However, and I don't mean to twist your words, it sure isn't proof of what 'probably' happened.
An interesting thread, on one of the most fascinating and complex areas of law, but kind of frustrating to read at times.
My brother in law was at college at the time of the murder and had a totally different POV. Lawrence was allegedly a small time drug dealer who was peddling to kids in the area. One of the accused murderers' sister had allegedly been raped by Lawrence and the murder was retribution for that.
Could be lies but I remember my brother in law having no sympathy at the time and that that was totally out of character for him.
i don't know why I'm even bothering to answer this crass blend of hearsay and internet drivel, but just to nip this one in the bud, here goes.
You can't libel a dead man, so write whatever you want. Perhaps we could all do the same about you, throw in an 'allegedly' or two, and that'd be ok as well.
Stephen Lawrence's friend, Duwayne Brooks was charged with attempted rape (this is undoubtedly the source of your brother-in-law's story) though the charge was subsequently dropped due to a lack of evidence. For what it's worth, Brooks is now a LIb Dem councillor in Lewisham.
Stephen was a good kid, brutally murdered. Here's Mr Justice Treacy, the judge in the recent case, while sentencing Norris and Dobson:
"A totally innocent 18-year-old youth on the threshold of a promising life was brutally cut down in the street in front of eyewitnesses by a racist, thuggish gang. You were both members of that gang. I have no doubt at all that you fully subscribed to its views and attitudes,"
"The crime was committed for no other reason than racial hatred … at least one of your group was armed with a lethal knife that night. I am sure you were aware of that."
"The evidence does not prove, so that I could be sure, that either of you had a knife, but the person who used it did so with your knowledge and approval."
"There was a degree of general premeditation; it was a racist crime driven by hatred; it involved a gang of like-minded attackers; a lethal weapon was employed and known in advance to be carried; the victim was completely blameless and helpless."
Sorry to let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Do not have a go at me. I am only passing on what I have been told by someone who knew him. You do not! You only know what you have read in the press.
Chief
Thank you for your post. Based on what you have written, I think we are in general agreement.
When I wrote "in many cases proof is based on probability" I certainly didn't have "proof of what probably happened" in mind. Perhaps I should have simply re-iterated what I said earlier today "But never-the-less, the proof is not absolute. Overwhelming ? perhaps, but absolute ? No."
Cheers
Don
Don
I was being (over)sensitive to the way we use around words such as 'alleged' or 'insufficient evidence' to convict people in the court of public opinion, or at least infer guilt that has never been tested on Court. 'No smoke without fire' is a principle that seems rather dangerous to me.
It is the same process by which the endless repetition of nonsense about 'detoxing', 'superfoods' magnetic bracelets and so many other dubious remedies somehow establishes these things as accepted and proven. The internet (and irresponsible media) allow the rapid promulgation of such rumours and claims with little critical analysis.
The OECD definition of factoid sums it up nicely; "an item of unreliable information that is repeated so often that it becomes accepted as fact"
Returning to legal matters, I find the Scottish system interesting in that is still retains the verdict 'not proven' in addition to guilty/not guilty. Sends a quite dfferent message and I'm curious how often it is used, and how perceived?
Bruce
Bruce,
I agree with your first paragraph (and the others also) about the way the court of public opinion infers guilt etc.
In some cases I have no doubt that "proof" in a (real) court can be absolute, but in many it amounts to a (very very) high degree of probability and it is, no doubt, variable from case to case. We refer to this as "beyond resonable doubt". I have no problem with this. Its a practical, workable, and IMHO fair system. But it isn't infallable. And just because a Court has found somebody guilty, or confirmed somebody to be innocent, doesn't guarantee that person to be guilty/innocent.
I'm not entirely sure whether you concur or not, or if my POV is clear or not. Hopefully the above paragraph helps to clarify my POV.
Cheers
Don
Bruce,
And just because a Court has found somebody guilty, or confirmed somebody to be innocent, doesn't guarantee that person to be guilty/innocent.
Cheers
Don
Well, in law guilty means guilty, innocent is not a verdict option, but not guilty is and means not guilty. It is a guarantee in law.
Derry
Well, in law guilty means guilty
Yes. Absolutely. In law.
In reality..............?
And that's my point.
Cheers
Don
Derry,
but not guilty is and means not guilty. It is a guarantee in law.
errrrrr, with the introduction of double jeopardy, there is no guarantee in law of not guilty. (I think)
Cheers
Don
I think you are splitting hairs. Leaving aside double jeopardy and the possibility of appeal etc. the legal position is that if you are found guilty you are guilty and if found not guilty you are not guilty. That is the only "reality".
Not guilty until the discovery of compelling evidence comes to light that puts the not guilty verdict in doubt, just like compelling evidence of innocence can reprieve a previously found guilty person, (as long as you have not hung him/her)
Not guilty until the discovery of compelling evidence comes to light that puts the not guilty verdict in doubt, just like compelling evidence of innocence can reprieve a previously found guilty person, (as long as you have not hung him/her)
'Hanged'......sorry. G
I think you are splitting hairs. Leaving aside double jeopardy and the possibility of appeal etc. the legal position is that if you are found guilty you are guilty and if found not guilty you are not guilty. That is the only "reality".
I am most definitly NOT splitting hairs.
The law is the law. Guilty (in law) or Not Guilty (in law) are fine terms. They help keep society in order.
Quite separately is the issue of who REALLY did commit the crime, (or not, as the case might be)
Fortunately, ASFICT the vast majority of times, it appears that the law and reality are aligned. If they weren't, society wouldn't be too happy with the law. But, and its a big enough but to need to be considered, the law doesn't always get it right.
In the case of Dobson and Norris, the law clearly got it wrong. First time round, they were found not guilty. Without double jeopardy (which we cannot conveniently leave aside) they would still be free men despite almost certainly having committed the crime for which they have now been found guilty and are serving time.
There are plenty of examples where people have been found guilty (in law) for crimes they did not commit.
Splitting hairs ? No way.
Cheers
Don
We can never know whether law and reality are aligned as you put it.
There are processes of appeal and potential for re-trial under double jeopardy but by your reckoning none of that can really establish the truth and I would probably agree that the truth can never really be known. What the law is for is to put evidence to a jury and, until overturned on appeal, their verdict is for any practical purpose the truth.
I would also say that the law did not get it wrong at the first trial. The evidence on which they have recently been convicted was not available, indeed could not have been identified under the tools avaiable to forensic science, 18 years ago. Of course they might not have done it in reality.
guiity for years now found guilty
We can never know whether law and reality are aligned as you put it.
There are processes of appeal and potential for re-trial under double jeopardy but by your reckoning none of that can really establish the truth and I would probably agree that the truth can never really be known. What the law is for is to put evidence to a jury and, until overturned on appeal, their verdict is for any practical purpose the truth.
Other than that final word (truth) you have captured my point of view perfectly.
The verdict is just that, the verdict. For all practical purposes, we treat the verdict as if it were the truth. And I have no problem with that at all.
Your final paragraph is more involved and could justify a separate thread. The point I was making (ie our legal system gets it wrong from time to time) is perfectly valid without the Dobson & Norris case.
Cheers
Don