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?

Sally Clark is sadly not with us anymore. She was convicted of a 'heinous crime'. Her first appeal was rejected. She was finally released after her second appeal. She died of alcohol poisoning a few years later.

But @DaringPinkBear thinks resources should not be wasted on people like her

Terrible idea. We struggle to deliver justice as it is. Let's not actively make it worse.

But where is the delay of the sentence? If you appeal a custodial sentence, you don't get let out of prison, pending an appeal, unless there are very extreme circumstances.

Appeals, I guess, do clog up an already overcrowded judiciary system, but that's a different argument.

Deprivation of liberty is the sentence and punishment, not removal of recourse to the law.

Too many innocent people later exonerated for anyone to think this would be a good thing.

No. Absolutely everyone has a right to justice.

I think certain parts of the media have a lot of the blame for whipping up and fanning these kind of perspectives which are fundamentally incompatible with the rule of law.

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

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?

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

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

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

Vibes.

Like Andrew Malkinson (amongst many others wro hey convicted?

Perhaps you should get a job at the Post Office?

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.

And Sam Hallam!

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

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.

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.

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

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

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?

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 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/

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