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

[DaringPinkBear]

Why waste resources on people who’ve clearly committed egregious acts?

Well appeals are only allowed if new evidence comes to light. If there's new evidence in any crime, I think it should be heard, don't you?

If it really is clear that they have committed an egregious (and illegal) act, then they likely won't get permission to appeal. If they get permission to appeal, the position is probably not that clear cut.

YABU. It’s supposed to be justice, not revenge.

Do you mean appeal the conviction or appeal the sentence?

Remember Andrew Malkinson?

The law gets it wrong sometimes. Be careful what you wish for.

If you vote away one group of people's human rights, you vote away your own.
Miscarriages of justice have been known to happen.

I do. I think my frustration is more with cases where the evidence is overwhelming and appeals seem to be used as a way to delay justice rather than genuinely question the verdict. It makes me wonder where we draw the line between ensuring fairness and preventing the system from being misused.

Here are some people who were convicted of committing heinous crimes:

• The Birmingham Six
• The Guilford Four
• The Maguire Seven
• Sally Clark
• Steven Downing

Should they have has their right to appeal forfeited?

I’m mainly referring to appeals of the conviction itself, especially in cases where the evidence against someone is overwhelming and the crime is particularly heinous. Appeals of sentences feel like a slightly different issue though as they might be about ensuring proportionality rather than disputing guilt. I think both types of appeals can be important in some cases but my frustration is more with situations where it seems like the system is being used to delay justice rather than genuinely address potential errors.

You have to get leave to appeal, which requires either an error in law in the first trial or new evidence. What examples are you thinking of?

The percentage of cases that get to the appeals court is tiny. It is right that the option is there for everyone.

https://ccrc.gov.uk/facts-figures/

@DaringPinkBear you state "where it seems like the system is being used to delay justice rather than genuinely address potential errors."

Have you example of where this has happened? As others have said you need get leave to appeal, and it is extremely hard to that. And whilst it is ongoing you are serving your sentence. So how is justice being delayed?

You are being scarily unreasonable. What should an innocent person do if found guilty of crimes they did not commit? Just put up with prison and rot?
Of course appeals have a place in the justice system. It's skewed enough as it is, against the poor, the uneducated and those of below average intelligence.

If the evidence against someone is overwhelming they shouldn't get leave to appeal. Can you give an example of a case where this has happened, OP?

I think unfortunately there's no escape from the right to at least request an appeal. I understand it can be painful for victims and can prolong the process but equally I think it's an important safeguard that prevents innocent people from being wrongfully sentenced. Miscarriages of justice do happen so I think it's better we err on the side of caution. Mainly because it's so important that we get the right people for crimes so they are correctly prosecuted/ off the streets/ ideally successfully rehabilitated where possible. The frustration at the misuse of it is fair, but you have to apply the same rights to everyone or it would fail to be an appropriate safeguard for innocent people or where perhaps the crime they committed isn't as severe as what they've been accused of initially.

No. Don’t be stupid.

This. Doesn't matter if evidence seems overwhelming at the time or if it seems totally obvious that the person is guilty, there's always room for error in all areas of the judiciary and therefore if new evidence comes to light everyone should be eligible to appeal (as is the case now). This is one of the main reasons we don't have the death penalty anymore in this country, and rightly so.

When you can define 'overwhelming' and 'heinous'.

Or maybe we could just ask you in each case and that could be the definitive ruling.

Are you the same poster who started a thread on prisoners not being allowed to have tv or gyms last night?

Coincidence- it would have been his birthday today.

No, that's a shit idea.

Isn't he still alive? He was on radio 4 last year and gave the impression he was still young enough that you'd expect him to live for a long time, but maybe I missed it if he died.

Oh I'm mistaken, sorry.

There's definitely been a theme recently!