Plan B Forum

Two found guilty 18 years and 3+ criminal trials after the racist murder of Stephen Lawrence.

This is a complicated case with a lot of issues, so anyone interested should start with this linked article:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16347953

I've followed this case over the years in the media and also saw the BBC documentary. It raises interesting questions, especially about doing away with double jeopardy rules.

I'm interested in hearing the views of the Brits on the board about the impact of the case.

eta: Here is another case which references England's (and Wales's) abolishment of double jeopardy: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... ghter.html

Curious what my American lawyer friends think of such a concept? We're certainly able to revisit and set aside convictions when new & compelling evidence arises; should we be able to retry the previously acquitted under the same circumstances?

Actually, the prohibition of double jeopardy only applies to the loss of "life or limb," so...

While it is attractive to have the possibility of re-trying those who have been acquitted when new inculpatory evidence comes to light, I think it is outweighed by the danger of prosecutorial misconduct. I can imagine a prosecutor who is pissed that a defendant got off, and spends the next ten years on various fishing expeditions so that s/he can have an other shot at them.

My liberal friends have always tried to convince me that it is better (and acceptable) to free the occasional bad guy, as long as no innocent person is convicted. Let's leave it at that.

The Stephen Lawrence case was a stain on British justice. Cops were complicit in racism and not putting in the effort, the whole trial was a farce.