Am I right to be worried about the Stephen Lawrence trial?

There are two main aspects of this whole sorry business which worry me.  First, is the fact that these two men, Norris and Dobson, were the 'victims' (I use the word with care) of the decision taken under the influence of a liberal-led outcry in which the ancient law of no double jeapardy was set aside for crimes of violence.  Indeed, as I understand it (and please correct me if I am wrong) not only were the two men aquitted when they stood trial years ago in a private case brought by the Lawrence family, but their aquittals then had to be set aside at a later date in order for them to be charged last year.

Double jeapardy is, or should be, a cherished part of a civic society in that it provides the authorities with one chance, and one chance only, to charge people with a crime and attempt to prove their guilt.  The fact that it was the whipped-up emotions of this specific case which brought about the change in an ancient practice worries me even more.  However, I do see that there is one good argument in its favour.  The rate of advance in forensic science is such that it is possible for more and more cases to be re-examined in retrospect and for hard evidence to be produced and I can see that there is an injustice if that has to be ignored.

The other factor which worries me about this particular case is that it draws my attention, once again, to this invented offence of 'racially aggravated crime'.  Were I, an elderly, white, male Englishman to be 'offed' by some thug I would be severely displeased if, as I looked down from my cloud in heaven (sorry, what was that?), my perp drew a shorter sentence than the perp in Court Two who bumped off a black or brown victim.  Where-in lies the difference?

In fact there is a third thing which worries me about this whole Lawrence case and that is the way in which it has been coloured (pun intended) by colour prejudice, and I do not just mean white on black.  It has, at times, almost amounted to hysteria and that is no setting for the conduct of legal proceedings and a fair trial.

Tell me I'm wrong and put my mind to rest.

Oh, sorry, one other thing.  Why hasn't the Black Police Officers' Association been had up by the Race Relations Board?

 

 

Comments

[Whyaxye]

Yes, I believe you are right to be concerned about the demise of "double jeopardy", but I think it was originally the principle that prevented the state bashing away at "undesirables" until it got the result it wanted. But as you say, the advances in scientific evidence need to be taken into account. It would be a travesty of justice if we were to ignore all means at our disposal to decide guilt and innocence.

I am also OK about the idea of "racially aggravated crime". We acknowledge that we can be bumped off for a range of different reasons and motivations, and sentencing reflects that. When "Mrs. W" finally puts the pillow over my face and gets some peace back into her life, she will be less culpable than someone who does it because they want my (non-existent) family silver. And by extension, someone who kills or injures me just because of the colour of my skin is - other things being equal, of course - more reprehensible than someone with a less personal motive. They are full of hate, rather than just greed or stupidity.

[Dom]

"...someone who kills or injures me just because of the colour of my skin is - other things being equal, of course - more reprehensible than someone with a less personal motive. They are full of hate, rather than just greed or stupidity."

The problem though is that you have to look into (as they say) a person's heart to tell the difference. Usually in the States, and in England too, if racial slurs are heard we assume it is a race crime. But if "go to hell" is heard, is it a "religious crime"? The fact is, if the victim is black, you're going to use a racial slur, if he is gay you're going to use a homophobic slur, and if he is fat, you're going to use an "appearance slur" (pig, etc).

And DD is right, race crime generally means "white on black". At least I can't think of a race crime that was "black on white" even if slurs were used. And it is very annoying to find officials bending over backwards in the case of "black on white" crimes to explain why it was not racially motivated -- as though that matters. For example, here is the Wichita Horror -- why in the world did the police even need to investigate whether or not it was racially motivated?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wichita_Massacre

[Whyaxye]

Dom,

I agree with most of what you say, but I think my general point still stands. The law distinguishes between the seriousness of crimes on the basis of looking into people's hearts. This is the basis of mens rea
http://e-lawresources.co.uk/Mens-rea-intention.php
and it is a difficult thing to get right. But we still do it. Usually the evidence is based on more than what is shouted as the crime is committed, and of course all evidence should be given due and appropriate weight. The law is there in part to judge the nature of intentions, and to give up this principle is to opt for a mandatory flat rate sentence for all crimes of the same type. The Lawrence case and the Wichita Massacre are both terrible, and what contributes to the horror is the intentions of the perpetrators.

I am with you 100% about the current bias in the application of the law. Like DD, I think there is something of the "show trial" about the Lawrence case. But, as a white man, I would want a person who attacks me because I am white to be whacked harder than a person who attacks me because I look affluent or careless.

So yes, these are difficult cases, and in the Lawrence case the procedure has been botched somewhat. But with respect, I would like to retain the principle of racial aggravation.

Lawrence's attackers have now been sentenced, by the way. Just over 15 and 14 years, which is a bit more than legal commentators were speculating this morning...

[Vanessa]

I could not agree with you more. I left a similar comment on the Express (I think it was) that I do not believe they are guilty and why is it only whites who are racist and not blacks? This was a show trial persued relentlessly by the family. Normally, when you are found guilty you stop saying you did not do it, the shout from one of them to the jury was "you are sending an innocent man to gaol, I hope you are satisfied" It is frightening how powerful the blacks are in this country. I have been shouted at by muslims (turning the air blue) but I know I cannot tell the police, they will do nothing.

[David Duff]

'W',thanks for your fascinating link but I remain unconvinced. Obviously, establishing motive is critical in order to sort out mercy killings and self-defence, but motive is much trickier and I think for purposes of establishing some sort of hierarchy it should be avoided. A killing is a killing whether it be for greed, sex, vengeance or just plain old-fashioned hate, and attempting to place them in some sort of (highly subjective) hierarchy is iniquitous, in my view. Of course, years ago no such attempt was made because by and large they were all hung!

Dom, what a horror story from Wichita!

Vanessa, welcome to D&N. Generally, I try not to second guess a jury for the simple reason that unless you hear every word said in court it is impossible to judge. That is not to say that I don't realise that sometimes juries will get it wrong, the problem is knowing when! I have no particular experience of criminals but prison officers tend to say that if you take their prisoners' words for it, there are never any guilty men in jail! You are, I suspect, entirely right to suggest that in certain areas of the UK coloured people have considerable 'power'. However, that is usually in areas where they are in a majority and thus it is not unreasonable for them to have it - within the bounds of UK law. More troublesome, in my view, is the collusion between coloured race-relations advocates and white liberals at the national level, in parliament and the media, which leads to bad laws being enacted against us all. The entire 'racial aggravation' law is a case in point.

[JuliaM]

"They are full of hate, rather than just greed or stupidity."

Because it's OK to have greedy and stupid people walking free, but not hateful ones?

[JuliaM]

" Usually in the States, and in England too, if racial slurs are heard we assume it is a race crime."

Well, you'd think so wouldn't you? But, apparently not.

[David Duff]

I remember that post of yours, Julia. And Vanessa, go give it a read.

[Dom]

Julia, there just isn't a rule of law anymore, is there? I loved the part of the story where the victimizers were said to be victims of force, because someone tried to pull them off the young girl while she was lying helpless in the street. Let's be thankful he wasn't sent to jail.

[Whyaxye]

JuliaM

"Because it's OK to have greedy and stupid people walking free, but not hateful ones?"

This can't be derived from what I said, and so a little clarification is in order. I think it is perfectly OK to have greedy, stupid, and hateful people walking around free, as long as they don't break laws. But once they break laws, then (everything else being equal, including the damage caused to others) the hateful person requires in my opinion a more stringent punishment. The ethical status of an action is in the intention. But this in no sense implies that greedy and stupid people are in some sense immune from punishment.

[Jimmy Glesga]

The boy and his pal would not have been attacked if they were white.
Call it what you want racist and religious attacks do happen and are generally given a low profile when it happens to a whitey. The boy was murdered and that is fact, those involved should be banged up in jail with the coppers that perhaps covered up. Julia makes fair comment the law should apply equally with no excuses.