This just

[SueEllen]

Ok, who has the keys to the "outrage bus"?

Your posting early.

[original PM]

well they brutally hacked a guy to death in broad daylight with machete's

which is murder

so they get the sentance for murder

not really sure what they could appeal against?

any ideas?

[VectraMan]

well they brutally hacked a guy to death in broad daylight with machete's

which is murder

so they get the sentence for murder

not really sure what they could appeal against?

any ideas?

They could appeal against the length of their sentences. Whole life / 45 years is significantly more than most one-off murderers get.

[xoggoth]

Suppose they are entitled to all legal procedures and if they don't have the money themselves... Can't decide who gets what on basis of public outrage. Who knows? One of us could be wrongly convicted of some heinous crime.

Maybe a more general problem is why these things cost so much. If somebody hacks another to death on camera in full view of witnesses WTF deliberation is needed that would take more than a day? Clearer laws, simpler procedures and a cap on F* lawyer's fees might help. I would say the law wastes too much time bothering about motive when the factor that really matters is ongoing risk to others.

[SueEllen]

They want to get their sentences reduced to something like 15-25 years. That way they can apply for patrol halfway through their sentences and hopefully be allowed out on licence.

The fact they probably, like a lot of people ,don't realise that if you are allowed out on licence and do anything that gets the attention of the police you can be arrested and thrown back in jail without it going to court. So no arguing with absolutely anyone at all.

Some killers like Ian Brady and Rosemary West will never be allowed out. However some i.e. Ian Brady can't accept this so still bother to go to court at every opportunity to try and reduce/change their sentencing.

[MicrosoftBob]

well they brutally hacked a guy to death in broad daylight with machete's

which is murder

so they get the sentance for murder

not really sure what they could appeal against?

any ideas?

I suppose they could claim it was an act of God as their sky fairy told them to do it

[SueEllen]

I suppose they could claim it was an act of God as their sky fairy told them to do it

One of them did go into a rant but was shut up by the judge. I think he was removed from the dock.

[SueEllen]

Suppose they are entitled to all legal procedures and if they don't have the money themselves... Can't decide who gets what on basis of public outrage. Who knows? One of us could be wrongly convicted of some heinous crime.

Maybe a more general problem is why these things cost so much. If somebody hacks another to death on camera in full view of witnesses WTF deliberation is needed that would take more than a day? Clearer laws, simpler procedures and a cap on F* lawyer's fees might help. I would say the law wastes too much time bothering about motive when the factor that really matters is ongoing risk to others.

The legal process in this country has to be fair because we are a civilised country.

The reason it costs so much is because the lawyers working on it would have put a lot of hours into a high profile case to give them a defence argument. In addition any psychiatrists called on would have had to put a lot of work into the case to prove them sane so they couldn't do an Ian Brady.

If we didn't give them legal aid for every whim then some university law department/human rights organisation/couple of solicitors would have attempt to take their cases to the European Court of Human Rights arguing that they didn't have a fair trial due to lack of legal representation.

BTW Britain was one of the countries that wanted and worked to make the European Court of Human Rights work after World War II.

[KentPhilip]

I don't see the problem with this. It is not as if the money is going to them personally, it's just so that the world can see that justice has been done, in this high-profile case.

[Mich the Tester]

BTW Britain was one of the countries that wanted and worked to make the European Court of Human Rights work after World War II.

Indeed; Churchill and Adenauer, not exactly pinko-commie leftie Islingtonites, pushed hard for it. Churchill realised that Britain could only exert a 'civilising influence' on some European countries if it signed up itself, otherwise it would have zero moral authority. They saw the threat that the Soviet Union presented, not only in military terms but in political terms, as many European countries, even those west of the iron curtain, could fall into dictatorship supported by the Soviet Union. OK, so now the USSR is gone, but given the power hunger of Mr Putin and the parlous state of public finances in some western European countries, it's still quite possible that western European states can be destabilised and end up with nasty dictatorships; perhaps even more so than in the 50s given the financial crisis.

Unfortunately the ECHR has been caught up, quite incorrectly, in the whole EU debate, and however much you tell some people that these are completely seperate institutions, many fail to understand that. Also, a few unusual cases have led to bad publicity, but in general the ECHR serves a very useful purpose; some in the UK, NL or Germany might say "it's not necessary here" because those countries generally respect the human rights of their citizens and residents, but it is necessary to exert influence on those that don't, and it might even be necessary for the those countries given recent governments' behaviour with more and more intrusive powers for intelligence and now taxes.