Alesha MacPhail case

[Estragon]

One thing that I'm not totally sure of is the reason that the anonymity afforded to the culprit in this case isn't extended to all prior to receiving a verdict.  In the world of immersive media that we live in, there doesn't seem anyway that a jury could feasibly isolate themselves from the conjecture and assumption that follows the news of someone being questioned in a murder - particularly one more emotionally resonating like this tragic case.

Recently, ITV news broadcasted an interview with the Mother of a man held on suspicion of murder prior to charge - which is obviously an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but nevertheless makes me extremely uncomfortable.

The "no smoke without fire" mindset that exists in a huge proportion of the public is fed by these tidbits of information dripfed to the press, not to mention the possibility of anything received being exaggerated in an attempt to fill the pre-requisite 24 hours of daily broadcast from news channels.

[GordonS]

9 minutes ago, Estragon said:

One thing that I'm not totally sure of is the reason that the anonymity afforded to the culprit in this case isn't extended to all prior to receiving a verdict.  In the world of immersive media that we live in, there doesn't seem anyway that a jury could feasibly isolate themselves from the conjecture and assumption that follows the news of someone being questioned in a murder - particularly one more emotionally resonating like this tragic case.

Recently, ITV news broadcasted an interview with the Mother of a man held on suspicion of murder prior to charge - which is obviously an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but nevertheless makes me extremely uncomfortable.

The "no smoke without fire" mindset that exists in a huge proportion of the public is fed by these tidbits of information dripfed to the press, not to mention the possibility of anything received being exaggerated in an attempt to fill the pre-requisite 24 hours of daily broadcast from news channels.

One important reason for making the accused's name public following charge is that it often brings out other victims, who otherwise would not have had the courage to come forward.

The general principle is that justice is seen to be done, and things are only made private if there is a good reason. That goes for the victims as well as the accused.

Fair enough to take a different view on that, personally I prefer the Scottish approach of allowing details to be public but nailing editors to the wall for contempt of court. That ITV interview could not have happened in a Scottish case, and during this trial the media have respected the reporting restrictions very well - because they'd be jailed if they didn't.

[Dons_1988]

One thing that I'm not totally sure of is the reason that the anonymity afforded to the culprit in this case isn't extended to all prior to receiving a verdict.  In the world of immersive media that we live in, there doesn't seem anyway that a jury could feasibly isolate themselves from the conjecture and assumption that follows the news of someone being questioned in a murder - particularly one more emotionally resonating like this tragic case.
Recently, ITV news broadcasted an interview with the Mother of a man held on suspicion of murder prior to charge - which is obviously an extreme example of what I'm talking about, but nevertheless makes me extremely uncomfortable.
The "no smoke without fire" mindset that exists in a huge proportion of the public is fed by these tidbits of information dripfed to the press, not to mention the possibility of anything received being exaggerated in an attempt to fill the pre-requisite 24 hours of daily broadcast from news channels.

I totally agree.

[microdave]

Dont really care if they release his name or not but I reckon the sentence will be a lot shorter than some are saying - about 10 years.

The law tends to work on precedent. Luke Mitchell was 14 when he killed Jodi Jones (who was also 14) and got 20 years. With Campbell being two years older and Alesha being just six, I reckon he'll get 25 years minimum. And of course, there's the sexual element too.

[Dee Man]

50 minutes ago, GordonS said:

 I'm willing to bet Brian McConnachie QC will have been taking the longest showers of his life every day he finished work. The guy took one for the team.

Surely lawyers know exactly what they're letting themselves in for as soon as they decide to pursue that career and that they're highly likely to be involved in some horrific cases. They're rewarded handsomely for their choice of job which obviously doesn't lessen the impact of the horrors that they're subjected to but to suggest they're some sort of martyrs is pushing it a bit. 

[welshbairn]

2 minutes ago, Dee Man said:

Surely lawyers know exactly what they're letting themselves in for as soon as they decide to pursue that career and that they're highly likely to be involved in some horrific cases. They're rewarded handsomely for their choice of job which obviously doesn't lessen the impact of the horrors that they're subjected to but to suggest they're some sort of martyrs is pushing it a bit. 

Aye, I'd quite happily offer a shite defence for a horrible creep for £500 an hour or whatever they get.

[Dindeleux]

Are attacks on the innocent relatives of paedophiles/murderers commonplace?
I can't say I can ever recall hearing about it happening.

A really quiet guy at my school threw himself in front of a train on a Sunday morning when he was in 5th year.

Turned out he had raped a girl a few hours earlier and his family were pretty much chased out of their home on the same day as their son died.

Terrible for the families.

[101]

9 hours ago, Dee Man said:

Are attacks on the innocent relatives of paedophiles/murderers commonplace?

I can't say I can ever recall hearing about it happening.

It happens and when it does its usually horrific crimes - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25122280.

 

We studied this case in college, which was awful

[welshbairn]

13 minutes ago, Adam101 said:

It happens and when it does its usually horrific crimes - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-25122280.

 

We studied this case in college, which was awful

Did anything happen to the cops?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25139185

[MuckleMoo]

I would have been more than happy not to have his name released if it meant I didn't have to read the tabloids psuedo psychological profile of the c**t being addicted to Fortnight and posting on YouTube.

[Mark Connolly]

1 hour ago, MuckleMoo said:

I would have been more than happy not to have his name released if it meant I didn't have to read the tabloids psuedo psychological profile of the c**t being addicted to Fortnight and posting on YouTube.

It's funny how the profiles never have things like "He spent 8 hours a day watching Homes Under the Hammer and reading the Daily Mail".

[sophia]

22 hours ago, ICTJohnboy said:

Desperately sad case.

The fact that Alesha was such a beautiful child, so photogenic, somehow makes it even more upsetting.

RIP little girl.

 

21 hours ago, The_Kincardine said:

It doesn't.  Fat 6 yo munters getting raped and murdered is just as upsetting.  They are weans however they look and deserve our protection.

 

What I would do is castigate both sets of parents.  If you sell drugs to a 16 yo then you are utter scum.  If you have a 16 yo who rapes and murders a wee lassie then you are also scum.

I rather think that my good friend John, dearest Johnny, has succeeded in succinctly riffing on Frankie Boyle, commenting on our media and prompting the knee jerkers.

Johnboy, please say it's so.

As for the text I've highlighted, I absolutely agree and it's obvious that parents, perhaps even grandparents, cousins and associates should all be subject to opprobrium for the extraordinary actions of a deeply troubled individual.

[19QOS19]

Don't get me wrong, like most people I want to personally remove his frontal lobe with a claw hammer, but emotion like that after extreme and incredibly rare crimes like this makes for very bad law.

I'm not an advocate of the death penalty but in cases like this you wonder what the alternative is. The cretin would have committed this crime even if we had the death penalty so it certainly isn't a deterrent. I don't think death penalty advocates see it as simply a life for a life though. Does anyone believe this man (at 16 he knows right from wrong) can be rehabilitated? I doubt it very much. As I've said elsewhere; you can't change who people are attracted to. If he can't be rehabilitated then he's going be spending his time in a prison paid for by us. Those two reasons alone are why I'm not entirely against it either.

[welshbairn]

38 minutes ago, sophia said:

 

I rather think that my good friend John, dearest Johnny, has succeeded in succinctly riffing on Frankie Boyle, commenting on our media and prompting the knee jerkers.

Johnboy, please say it's so.

As for the text I've highlighted, I absolutely agree and it's obvious that parents, perhaps even grandparents, cousins and associates should all be subject to opprobrium for the extraordinary actions of a deeply troubled individual.

I blame that woman  in the Rift Valley who kicked us all off.

[19QOS19]

The alternative is to not give people the death penalty, obviously. 
You’ve also only gave one reason, and that one reason is a complete fallacy, considering the costs associated with giving someone the death penalty far outweigh the costs of keeping them in prison for the rest of their life. 
Terrible post, would not read again. 

What good is it doing anyone to let him sit in a cell 23 hours a day? You can't rehabilitate someone like that, so what is the alternative?

[sophia]

28 minutes ago, 19QOS19 said:

5 hours ago, GordonS said:

Don't get me wrong, like most people I want to personally remove his frontal lobe with a claw hammer, but emotion like that after extreme and incredibly rare crimes like this makes for very bad law.

I'm not an advocate of the death penalty but in cases like this you wonder what the alternative is. The cretin would have committed this crime even if we had the death penalty so it certainly isn't a deterrent. I don't think death penalty advocates see it as simply a life for a life though. Does anyone believe this man (at 16 he knows right from wrong) can be rehabilitated? I doubt it very much. As I've said elsewhere; you can't change who people are attracted to. If he can't be rehabilitated then he's going be spending his time in a prison paid for by us. Those two reasons alone are why I'm not entirely against it either.

I'm with you.

I'm all for saving the cost, however insignificant, but I wonder, what are "cases like this"?

I'd be grateful if you would outline where the general crossover points should be.

[Ira Gaines]

I hope I never reach a day where I'm in support of state sponsored murder.

[Bairnardo]

I like that in general terms, the P&B consensus is much more intelligently and thoughtfully reached than the comments section int he Daily Mail for example. But I do think sometimes as we look past the tabloid rhetoric for more realistic and sensible ideas, the horror of a crime ends up being downplayed and the emotional reaction of people to it becomes belittled somewhat. 

Example, the ISIS bride. I fully support her coming back to the UK, since she is clearly our problem, but participation or even support in what ISIS stand for sickens me to the pit of my stomach. A pure c**t of a human.

I am fucking seething about what this laddie did, and cliche though it may be to say it, more seething still because I have two daughters. I hope he gets badly hurt in prison and lives a life of pain and misery until a well deserved death, but equally, I know that he will never feel even 1% of the pain he has inflicted. I don't care for his rehabilitation. I don't want the death penalty introduced either but that doesn't mean I think this person deserves a second chance. It just means I don't think the state can be trusted, or that there is enough evidence to support the death penalty in a constructive justice system. But still, we are human. This crime defies humanity and every instinct 99.999% of us have.

[19QOS19]

I'm not an advocate of the death penalty

The alternative is reintroducing capital punishment, which is quite rightly against international law, and wanted only by Daily Mail reading morons like yourself. 

And yet I'm the moron.

You forgot Tory, which seems to be your usual go to drivel when you take issue with someone.

[19QOS19]

Saying you’re not an advocate of the death penalty doesn’t cut the mustard when you then go on a word salad monologue about why you wouldn’t be against the death penalty being reintroduced my man. 
 

I thought it was pretty clear I was trying to see it from both sides of the fence. By saying straight away I'm against the death penalty I don't think there was any point clogging up the post behind all the reasons why I don't agree with it. The two points I mentioned were the two reasons I can see why people are for it.