Stephen Lawrence murder: Dobson and Norris found guilty

[snowychap]

should lead to a change in the law

What kind of change would you actually be suggesting, Dave?

[wedge]

The ironic thing is, if they had been found guilty when they should have been, they would probably have been out by now. I hope that eats away at them.

[coda]

Gary Dobson, 36, will serve a minimum of 15 years and two months and David Norris, 35, 14 years and three months.

[Clarry]

As for the forensic evidence... what I gleaned from the reporting suggested every liklihood of a reasonable doubt.

I was thinking along these lines until I read that they didn't bother with a forensic expert for the defence. I suppose the burden is on the prosecution, but it may have been a risk they didn't want to take.

[dont_do_it_doug.]

should lead to a change in the law

What kind of change would you actually be suggesting, Dave?

They committed the crime at ages 16 and 17. The law states that at that age they do not have the same moral responsibility as an adult. Hence the light sentencing shown above.

However, I am suggesting that each crime should be judged on a more individual basis. In this case in particular, these we're not "boys". Or at least if they were at the time then in the 18 years hence neither has shown remorse, their adult selves are just as guilty as their so called "minor" selves. At least in my opinion. This could be taken into account in the future.

[ender4]

well they both got an indefinite sentence. with a minimum of 14/15 years.

As a normal sentence this would be the equivalent of 28/30 years, with eligibility of parole after 14/15 years.

as it is, after the 15 years, they may end up spending many more years in prison.

ps - i hope they get **** up (and ****) whilst in prison.

those posters who think that they weren't definitely guilty haven't followed the detail of the case much.

it was so obvious that they were guilty of murder, even more so when you read the explanation of the judge to the jury saying that they are guilty of murder if they were in the group that night, even if they didn't do the actual stabbing. he explained why that is the case in criminal trials, and makes sense.

as it was pretty much 99.99% obvious that they were part of the gang that evening, guilty of murder was (almost) a foregone conclusion, once you hear the rest of the evidence.

and once you read about all the other (circumstantial) evidence not allowed to be presented in court, then its even more obvious.

the only annoyance is that prison is so nice/easy/cushy for them, that they really aren't going to care.

[tonyh29]

they are guilty of murder if they were in the group that night, even if they didn't do the actual stabbing

I'm no legal expert but I'd say the judge was talking bollocks if he said that

it was so obvious that they were guilty of murder,

but isn't the idea of a trail that you present evidence and allow the jury to decide based on that evidence and not what everyone knows ? how many miscarriages of justice have their been over the years when somebody everybody knew was guilty turned out not to be ?

[A.J.Rimmer]

it was so obvious that they were guilty of murder, even more so when you read the explanation of the judge to the jury saying that they are guilty of murder if they were in the group that night, even if they didn't do the actual stabbing. he explained why that is the case in criminal trials, and makes sense.

Of course this pretty much reflects the summing up of the judge in the murder trial of Craig & Bentley. The judge was quite right... the law demanded that both boy and man were guilty of murder... so they hanged Bentley knowing that Craig did the shooting. Yet subsequent generations have come to question the wisdom that result.

Personally I do not like witchhunts, irrespective of motives. I am also not happy that these people have stood trial a second time, irrespective of whether or not they did it... the precedent we have set contradicts all natural justice and is just too too dangerous.

Also these were mere boys, and however ignorant they were, more allowance must be made for their age and the impact on their lives over the past 18 years... I see no sign of this.

Furthermore, one may properly argue they too were victims of a racist society, and that however disastrously out of control were their actions, they reflected an attitude widely shared by their elders and supposed betters... listen to Dylan's Only a Pawn in their Game about the racist murder of Medgar Evers.

However one may feel for Stephen Lawrence, who had a right to live his life in peace without interference from these juvenile morons, I am just not happy about the way people, of all shades and persuasions, have reacted to this... rather like the Americans celebrating the death of Bin Laden... I didn't like that either.

[veloman]

they are guilty of murder if they were in the group that night, even if they didn't do the actual stabbing

I'm no legal expert but I'd say the judge was talking bollocks if he said that

No.I'm no legal expert either but in my time working in a local prison I came across a several cons who were trying to appeal their sentence in similar circumstances. The one bunch committed a very high-profile murder a few years ago up North and one of their number was trying to appeal as he was convicted under "joint enterprise" I think the expression was.

So it may be that this lot will be subject to that law. (his appeal wasn't granted IIRC)

[ender4]

Of course this pretty much reflects the summing up of the judge in the murder trial of Craig & Bentley. The judge was quite right... the law demanded that both boy and man were guilty of murder... so they hanged Bentley knowing that Craig did the shooting. Yet subsequent generations have come to question the wisdom that result.

Personally I do not like witchhunts, irrespective of motives. I am also not happy that these people have stood trial a second time, irrespective of whether or not they did it... the precedent we have set contradicts all natural justice and is just too too dangerous.

Also these were mere boys, and however ignorant they were, more allowance must be made for their age and the impact on their lives over the past 18 years... I see no sign of this.

Furthermore, one may properly argue they too were victims of a racist society, and that however disastrously out of control were their actions, they reflected an attitude widely shared by their elders and supposed betters... listen to Dylan's Only a Pawn in their Game about the racist murder of Medgar Evers.

However one may feel for Stephen Lawrence, who had a right to live his life in peace without interference from these juvenile morons, I am just not happy about the way people, of all shades and persuasions, have reacted to this... rather like the Americans celebrating the death of Bin Laden... I didn't like that either.

fair enough.

though allowance was made for the fact that they were young (under 18 ) at the time. without that they would have received a minimum sentence of around 30 years (so legal people have speculated).

[tonyh29]

they are guilty of murder if they were in the group that night, even if they didn't do the actual stabbing

I'm no legal expert but I'd say the judge was talking bollocks if he said that

No.I'm no legal expert either but in my time working in a local prison I came across a several cons who were trying to appeal their sentence in similar circumstances. The one bunch committed a very high-profile murder a few years ago up North and one of their number was trying to appeal as he was convicted under "joint enterprise" I think the expression was.

So it may be that this lot will be subject to that law. (his appeal wasn't granted IIRC)

I went and had a read of another website after your post and the judge appears to say “realised that another member of the group might stab Stephen Lawrence with the intention of causing him at least some bodily harm"

I just think legally it's a can of worms and personally I believe it makes the conviction unsound , however guilty they actually may be

[Chindie]

It's hard to make a judgement on whether 'joint enterprise' comes into play without knowing rather more about the case than we might have available to us here (mostly because none of us are likely to have examined the entire case and also, because to my knowledge, none of us are lawyers...), but it could. Joint enterprise comes into play when a groups actions lead to a result that none may have necessarily planned for but arose from their activity.

So a simple example that could apply to the Lawrence case would be if the group had gone out intent on violence and in turn that lead to one of them murdering Lawrence, they would all be guilty of murder. In essence, the group becomes guilty of murder, not just the individual who struck the killing blow. We have to assume, I guess, that the trial has reason to assume that that, or something close to that, is the case in this case - as I'm fairly sure that it's never been ascertained who actually murdered Lawrence.

[veloman]

Ah, Chindie's reply shows just how much I know about Criminal law - as opposed to Civil law. Yes, what you say makes complete sense when applied to the case to which I referred. The low-life who murdered were unarmed ( could be important) and out of their heads on cannabis and booze. So probably didnt set out to kill anyone.

A can of worms indeed.

[snowychap]

They committed the crime at ages 16 and 17. The law states that at that age they do not have the same moral responsibility as an adult. Hence the light sentencing shown above.

However, I am suggesting that each crime should be judged on a more individual basis. In this case in particular, these we're not "boys". Or at least if they were at the time then in the 18 years hence neither has shown remorse, their adult selves are just as guilty as their so called "minor" selves. At least in my opinion. This could be taken into account in the future.

I think that, as Mansfield suggested, their lack of remorse for that time will be taken in to account in any future parole hearings (even if they recant and show remorse during their minimum term).

If you mean that the law ought to be different regarding minimum terms and so on for minors then I think it may be now and that's a fair enough argument; if you mean that the principle ought to be different in that one shouldn't charge/judge/convict/sentence according to the law as it was at the time of the act but how the law may stand now then I'd be of the mind that that would be very wrong.

[chrisp65]

joint enterprise was explained or illustrated by someone earlier along the lines of:

if you knowingly drive a bank robber to a bank and sit outside to give him a lift home - you are a bank robber.

if you know he has a gun when he goes in, and there is any chance he's the type that might use it (like say, an armed bank robber), if he kills someone then you are going down for a joint enterprise murder.

If that is a half decent explanation of joint enterprise then I'd also 'guess' that if you run with a pack of scrotes that like violence and the pack attacks, you're going to get a bit of joint enterprise. A JE charge could be avoided by growing a backbone and naming the retarded murderer or describing events as accurately as you can.

[chrisp65]

The only annoyance is that prison is so nice/easy/cushy for them, that they really aren't going to care.

Out of genuinely curiosity, is that opinion formed from any sort of knowledge / experience or simply from received wisdom through the media?

I wouldn't say a cat B prison for a long sentence of multiple years is a particularly nice experience.

[Eames]

I hope they stick them in a wing with a load of black people.

Would that make them better people though & do the people on that wing deserve to be locked up with scum like that ?

I think they would get done in a wing with white people also, let's be honest we would all like to give them a slap. Little blokes in a gang killing people at bus stops, proper tough guys.

It has been reported that they both got **** good hidings whilst on remand.

[veloman]

Out of genuinely curiosity, is that opinion formed from any sort of knowledge / experience or simply from received wisdom through the media?

I wouldn't say a cat B prison for a long sentence of multiple years is a particularly nice experience.

This topic comes up from time to time and I can only quote what conditions were like where I worked (YOI).

No Sky , no access to internet , TV in pad ,games thingy (X-box or similar) if they can afford it and behave themselves inside. Access to well-equipped gym.

So - unless they go to Education or have a job,(wing cleaner etc), they could spend all day playing games or watching tele - which is what they might have done 'on the out' anyway.

I'll leave it to others to judge whether that is too 'cushy'.

[A.J.Rimmer]

Has anybody said what is going to happen to the other three by the way? They all still live in and around Eltham, and at the time the two Acourt brothers were supposed to be the main offenders. Are the police going to go after them too?

No need... the next Labour government is going to pass legislation declaring them guilty.

[peterms]

Of course this pretty much reflects the summing up of the judge in the murder trial of Craig & Bentley. The judge was quite right... the law demanded that both boy and man were guilty of murder... so they hanged Bentley knowing that Craig did the shooting. Yet subsequent generations have come to question the wisdom that result.

False analogy. Bentley told Craig to give himself in, and the verdict hinged on the meaning of "Let him have it". Elvis Costello has explained this in song, for the hard-of-reading. This is not a remotely comparable case.

Also these were mere boys, and however ignorant they were, more allowance must be made for their age and the impact on their lives over the past 18 years... I see no sign of this.

One was two months shy of his 18th birthday. Hardly a babe in arms. Some people, whatever their physical age, just aren't as adult as their bodies would suggest. I don't know if that's so in this case. But in any event, plenty of allowance was made for their ages at the time of committing the crime, and if you don't know that, you can't have discovered the very basic details about the sentence. It has been explained over and over again that they would have got far longer sentences had allowance not been made for their age when the crime was committed.

Sentencing allows for some consideration of the impact of the crime on their lives in the period since it was committed. This is where they could have demonstrated contrition or remorse. If they had been troubled by what they had done, and had shown this, it would have been taken into account. Instead, they chose to act out knifings of imaginary black people, believing themselves to be unobserved. This was the impact it had on them. This also was taken into account.