Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I knew the basics of this case when it went to retrial but can't say that I followed it in any great detail. Since the sentencing of Norris and Dobson, I have watched several interviews of the 5 suspects and read much more detail to the background of this case. I am interested to hear the views of other people on here as after reviewing the material, I believe that the suspects were hugely racist and undeniably guilty of the murder of Stephen Lawrence. If anything I think the sentences that they were given were far too lenient (I understand this is because they had to be charged as minors using the laws that were in place 18 years ago). I also believe that the person holding the knife on that night is one of the other five who haven't been arrested but that is speculation on my part after watching certain footage. The reason I ask is because I read this in the newspaper today and wonder if there are any others that agree with its thinking. It talks about the changes in 'Double Jeopardy' laws that have allowed Norris and Dobson to be tried again - the author of this article feels it is unjust. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/artic ... ds-newsxml Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Considering what they have done, how long its gone on for and how much it has cost, they should all rot in hell The sentences are pathetic if you ask me, the evidence points to them, so sentence them all to 100 years..... and then the one who held the knife will be revealed before long I feel for the Lawrence family, this should have been sorted a long time ago. but never the less their son will never return As for double jeopardy laws, if there is significant evidence then the offenders should be charged no matter if they have been acquitted previously of the same offence. End of !!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coldel Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The double jeopardy law wasn't changed for this case, many others governed that it was out of date. You can't hang on to a law for the sake of it being there when the world evolves and new ways of solving crimes emerge. DNA testing used to be inadmissible evidence, that changed when it was proven to be reliable. The article in my opinion is utter tosh, 50% of the laws that exist now probably didn't 100 years ago - if he wants to live in the past then fine but most of us came blinking out of caves many years ago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 I in no way agree with the article - I stated my viewpoint in the original post. I was just interested to see if people agreed with the writer's viewpoint that people shouldn't be tried twice for the same crime. In my opinion they should of been found guilty the first time but I think there were many errors made and institutional racism some suggest - they are guilty as sin and I hope Dobson gets bummed in jail and grasses the whole lot it. What boils my blood is the others that have not been charged again are living in huge houses, driving fancy cars and don't have jobs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 The sentences were too lenient IMHO. You might be interested to know that a member of the public has now petitioned the Attorney General that the sentences were, indeed, too lenient. He now has to review those sentences and I believe he has to do that within 28 days. The judge, in his summing up, was clear that the maximum he could sentence them to was determined by the law regarding the minor age issue. He inferred that he would have sentenced them to longer terms if he could have done so. It is also interesting to note that since the sentences were passed further information has been passed to the police regarding the other suspects who allegedly took part in the attack on Stephen Lawrence. This information appears to have come from people who were too scared to offer it until these two were in prison, that, if true, only goes further to cement the level of threat and intimidation that these people inflicted upon anyone they could to maintain their own freedom. They are guilty and they deserve to rot for what they did to Stephen Lawrence, his family and the community at large. They have had their taste of freedom, the Lawrence family will always be prisoners of their despicable actions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ekona Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Sentences were fine, racism shouldn't make a difference in a murder trial, killing someone is killing someone regardless of because of race, for money, or any other reason. Life should mean life, not a minimum term of X years. We should be putting pressure on politicians to change that law, not picking holes on whether 14 years is too much or too little for the life of this particular guy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rtbiscuit Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 double jep was designed to make sure that if you were taking someone to trial you did it right first time, because of the DJ ruling you had to make sure you put together the strongest case first time. and saved on half ass cases being raised. as for the writer of the original article, he writes for the daily mail, so what do you expect, its not a proper newspaper its a tabloid scare mongerer. as long as the courts continue to put decent cases forward i have no problem with the changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Sentences were fine, racism shouldn't make a difference in a murder trial, killing someone is killing someone regardless of because of race, for money, or any other reason. Life should mean life, not a minimum term of X years. We should be putting pressure on politicians to change that law, not picking holes on whether 14 years is too much or too little for the life of this particular guy. Having worked for Her Majesties Free Board and Lodgings, and been on the sentence calculations course........14 yrs will be more like 5-7yrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MK-Ultra Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 as for the writer of the original article, he writes for the daily mail, so what do you expect, its not a proper newspaper its a tabloid scare mongerer. as long as the courts continue to put decent cases forward i have no problem with the changes. Spot on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I believe the minimum in this case is 14 & 15 years. Sentences were fine, racism shouldn't make a difference in a murder trial, killing someone is killing someone regardless of because of race, for money, or any other reason. Life should mean life, not a minimum term of X years. We should be putting pressure on politicians to change that law, not picking holes on whether 14 years is too much or too little for the life of this particular guy. Having worked for Her Majesties Free Board and Lodgings, and been on the sentence calculations course........14 yrs will be more like 5-7yrs Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glrnet Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 +1 Life should mean life, not a minimum term of X years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ricey Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 +1 Life should mean life, not a minimum term of X years. +2 - why bother calling it fecking life if it isn't! Just call it what it is. Re the OP's question though I have to say that try to avoid the depressing stuff in the news so I really don't know the details to form an opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I believe the minimum in this case is 14 & 15 years. The minimum is NEVER the minimum unless you are a psycho serial killer .... which unfortunately these chaps are not We will see what happens in a few years Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 I believe the minimum in this case is 14 & 15 years. The minimum is NEVER the minimum unless you are a psycho serial killer .... which unfortunately these chaps are not We will see what happens in a few years No, in this case as far as I'm aware they must serve at least this long before they can be considered before parole and even then need to prove that they are no longer a threat to the general public. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rm cya Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Stephen Lawrence?!! Seriously???? Ffs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Stephen Lawrence?!! Seriously???? Ffs. A very insightful comment. You must of been on the jury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rm cya Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ive put enough of my hard earned towards this thank you very much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ive put enough of my hard earned towards this thank you very much. So have all tax payers - nobody has asked you to contribute any 'hard earned' in this thread. It's in the off topic discussion section of the site to share any opinion or insight you have on the case. I do however appreciate there are dozens of other cases up and down the country like this that have not had the same media attention. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maccaman Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 There was a lot of racism within the Metropolitan Police at the time & a lot of mistakes were also made. The families efforts to get justice for their son were the main reason this case never went away, thankfully. Without the double jeopardy law change, the advance in DNA testing which was unable to detect the blood on the jacket previously, would never have been used to convict these scum. Surely if evidence, either scientific or other, is found then the chance to retry someone is something that should be available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Good to see justice finally done. **rant / long post warning** The Macpherson inquiry was brought about as a result of the Stephen Lawrence murder and Macpherson's findings regarding the 'Double Jeopardy' laws were a large driver for the changes made. Personally I think it was the correct change to make - new forensic techniques are being developed and ratified all the time, why shouldn't a further trial be allowed? However, it should only be able to happen if further evidence comes to light (meaning the Court of Appeal agrees to quash the original acquittal) and the retrial must be approved by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I think it's sensible that it only applies to the most serious of offences though. What irritates me (and im I'll admit my clear bais as a copper) is the mis-representation of institutional racism. Macpherson's definition was: "...the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin " This constantly gets used to call cops racist. That is not what it means, it refers to an organisation, not a specific individual. I cant comment on whether the Met and the Police as a whole were guilty of institutional racism or not (I was in school at the time..) but the organisation has accepted that it was and has made changes - so im happy (so to speak) to go with that. I also think that a fair few of the mistakes made with the initial investigation were due to crime investigation in general and would have been made if Stephen Lawrence had been white. It was a bit sloppy, though that's awful easy to say with the benefit of hindsight. The shortcomings were pretty prevelant throughout the UK in all areas though, not just the Police. Racially aggravated offences for assault, criminal damage, harassment and public order were only introduced under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. Unfortuneately they are pretty unweildy and easy to exploit. The Stephen Lawrence murder has been compared to Rosa Parks in terms of what it did for race relations in the UK - im many ways that makes sense (though they are in no way comprable :S). Hopefully there will be more people brought to justice for this murder but I have to question the fairness of spending £50+ million on one case when there are other murders left to detect and prosecute. I also hope the sentances get reviewed and extended, however I can forsee the two convicts appealing and get let out Sentances in general in this country are far too lenient. The sooner mandatory minimum's come into force the better. I dealt with an investigation the other day where a guy slapped and strangled his partner and when cops turned up at the house he threatened them with a lock knife. Charged with Affray and Assault and it will be going to crown court but he will likely only get a community order. 6 months inside might make him rethink his choices. The idea of the victim being the most important is a fallacy. Offenders are wrapped in cotton wool and 'namby pambied' by the Justice System. We should have learnt these lessons already. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DoogyRev Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I believe the minimum in this case is 14 & 15 years. The minimum is NEVER the minimum unless you are a psycho serial killer .... which unfortunately these chaps are not We will see what happens in a few years No, in this case as far as I'm aware they must serve at least this long before they can be considered before parole and even then need to prove that they are no longer a threat to the general public. Again....we shall see Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rancer Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Ive put enough of my hard earned towards this thank you very much. Less than one English pound, actually. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Sentences in general in this country are far too lenient. I agree with quite a few of your points but the above is something that needs addressed. This is not sentencing as such but consider the rioting a while back - if they had used live rounds once, that would have sorted it. OK maybe a little harsh but they should of been allowed rubber bullets and water cannons from the offset. Look at theft rates in the middle east where your hands are cut off it you are caught and convicted. I am not saying we need to go so extreme but there are no real consequences in this country. Scum say 'There's nothing you can do' and they are right. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cragus Posted January 8, 2012 Author Share Posted January 8, 2012 Macpherson's definition was:"...the collective failure of an organisation to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin " Like most organisations though - a reputation takes many to build positively and only a few to ruin. Policing in my area sometimes really annoys me. For example, there is a lane in a town near me that only buses and taxis are allowed through between 9-6. A couple of days ago, the police were issuing fines to cars as they came round the corner in this lane. OK, it serves the drivers right for going through the lane when they shouldn't have been but had the coppers walked 50 paces round the corner the could have PREVENTED people from doing this. They were being reactive rather than proactive. My friend is a cop and asked for the day off recently - her senior 'joked' if she caught two people on their mobile phones she could have it off. I have also heard of other cops having competitions to see who could get the most in one day. On the other side I recognise there are many decent cops who wouldn't do such things. I know there are many coppers on here will offer first hand insight. The point I am making is a reputation can be ruined by a few while others a re working hard to make a real difference. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ATTAK Z Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 .......Look at theft rates in the middle east where your hands are cut off it you are caught and convicted....... Not really true in my experience, certainly for a first offence; however the crime rate is lower and it's much easier to live over there, in the 'rich' countries at least Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.