To say people who commit heinous crimes should automatically forfeit their right to appeal?

In a case close to me, the perpetrator was given grounds to appeal based on the fact that there was an error in the trial. Basically, something that wasn't quite fair to them. It felt awful that they could go free based on this fact and we were warned that they had a strong case for it being unfair, so them going free was a real possibility.

Thankfully, the judge did see it was unfair but felt that didn't warrant any change in sentencing. Something that we weren't even told was another possible outcome! We thought if they "won", they'd go free or have a greatly reduced sentence. If they "lost", nothing would change.

It gave me faith in the justice system. The unfairness shouldn't occur, it could mean someone isn't sentenced appropriately or is totally innocent. But it shouldn't mean someone obviously guilty should go free either.

One of the things underpinning our legal system for the last 300 years or so has been the idea that it is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer. What you seem to be proposing is a change that will criminalise more innocent people.

And as PP has highlighted, we’ve had some pretty unforgivable miscarriages of justice with the bar set where it currently is. So, how do you define ‘overwhelming evidence’ differently to reduce appeals (which as posted are already small) without imprisoning more innocent people? I think you are being dangerously unreasonable.

Stupid. Sorry. Have you not heard of folks who were hung although innocent? Or served huge sentences only to be revealed as innocent?

This, so much this.

That’s the name that popped into my head. A heinous crime and Sally and 2 other innocent women were convicted on expert evidence

Which evidence turned out to be completely and fatally flawed.

OP. You could not be more wrong if you tried

Yes, s/he is talking shit. Makes no sense and hasn't got the wherewithall to concede that many people get convicted wrongfully.

I like to think that, regardless of the crime, the same laws apply to that person as they would to me.

Too right. We should also completely do away with the tiresome system of trials and methodically examining evidence in the first place.

If enough of us reckon that somebody who is accused of a crime looks right dead shifty, what further evidence do we need to lock them up and throw away the key?

I assume with this statement you have read the sentencing guidelines for carrying bladed articles and offensive weapons in a public place

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/offences/magistrates-court/item/bladed-articles-and-offensive-weapons-possession/

Everyone should have the right to appeal. There have been so many miscarriages of justice.

You only get to appeal in the light of new substantial evidence anyway

I agree. So many people are also foaming with outrage that prison is an extension of a Butlins holiday camp. Despite never being inside one themselves or knowing anyone who has. So where are they getting that from?

Mmm, it's almost like OP is full of shit, isn't it?

Carry a knife/machete in public without lawful reason = jail time, regardless of age. That's the solution.

I just read the full details of the Malkinson case and it's absolutely shocking from start to finish. The justice system does not come out of it well at all.

How can an appeal be used to prevent justice, when those making an appeal are already been tried, convicted and serving a sentence? That makes no sense whatsoever.

William Blackstone's Ratio. 'It is better that 10 guilty persons go free than 1 innocent suffer. 1760s.

And Sam Hallam!

The only way of knowing the state can’t just lock you up for spurious reasons is making sure everyone has a right to a fair trial including the right to appeal. The nature of criminals is some of them will have committed heinous acts but the same rules need to apply to everyone.

Like Andrew Malkinson (amongst many others wro hey convicted?

Perhaps you should get a job at the Post Office?

Vibes.

Just thinking would be a promising start. I think depth is a bit ambitious.

I think the OP has disappeared. And hopefully to think about things in a bit more depth

Also, what do you mean by "delay"? What is being delayed by someone in prison appealing?

my frustration is more with situations where it seems like the system is being used to delay justice rather than genuinely address potential errors.

How do you test that without hearing the appeal though? A general vague sense of how evil you think the person is?

I wouldn't think that the seriousness of crime was correlated with strength of the case against them. So I'd disagree with you.