Europe South Asia Asia Pacific Americas Middle East Africa BBC Homepage World Service Education
BBC Homepagelow graphics version | feedback | help
BBC News Online
 You are in: Talking Point
Front Page 
World 
UK 
UK Politics 
Business 
Sci/Tech 
Health 
Education 
Entertainment 
Talking Point 
Forum 
In Depth 
AudioVideo 

Friday, 2 February, 2001, 10:42 GMT
Do you have faith in British justice?
What should be done to prevent further miscarriages of justice?
Raphael Rowe, one of the M25 Three who was freed last year after 12 years in prison for a murder he did not commit, has urged the government to do more to prevent miscarriages of justice.

In the past 15 years a number of miscarriages of justice have come to light, including the Birmingham Six, the Guildford Four and the Bridgewater Four.

As a result the Police And Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) in was introduced in the mid 1980s giving police clear rules to work by when arresting, interviewing and charging suspects. In 1997 the Criminal Cases Review Commission (CCRC) was set up to give those claiming they were victims of a miscarriage of justice an independent means of appeal.

But a poll commissioned by News Online suggested that more than half of respondents had "lost faith" in the criminal justice system.

Should more be done to make sure innocent people are not wrongly convicted? Should there be changes - such as juries having to justify their verdicts in writing?

This Talking Point is part of a week of crime specials. Click to read your comments on Yob Culture and Tagging.

This Talking Point is now closed. A selection of your comments are posted below.


I don't trust the jury system. It's so traditional that we think of it as the best system, but it's a well-known psychological effect that group decisions are always biased toward the views of most assertive. Neither do I trust the average person's ability to assess a case logically, to understand what is and isn't a valid argument or to think without prejudices. Perhaps jury discussions should have an impartial 'moderator'?
Ray Girvan, UK

For starters the trial by jury system should be upheld at all costs. People in the UK have already lost their right to remain silent. And although there should always be some sympathy for victims of crime, it should be remembered that the state should never abdicate its authority to the victims in deciding suitable punishment for those found guilty by their peers.
Dom, Australia

The British legal system is not perfect and every attempt should be made to prevent people from being convicted of crimes that they did not commit. The system does at least try to get it right, however, and tries to correct past mistakes.
Alan Murphy, USA

Cases take far too long to come to court and when they do the defence solicitors can ask for the trial to be postponed again and again - wasting everyone's time and the tax payers money. When someone who pleads not guilty is then found to be guilty, why aren't they - and their friends who lie to protect them - then prosecuted for perjury?
Gill, UK


Unless we believe the police are impartial and incorruptible then obviously we're going to get more miscarriages of justice

Gaby Vanhegan, UK
The powers of the police have been on a liberty devastating rise for years, the rights of the accused have been decreasing for the same length of time. So unless we believe the police are impartial and incorruptible then obviously we're going to get more miscarriages of justice.
Gaby Vanhegan, UK

I have to admit that I have faith in British justice but the fact that British justice does not exist makes my statement meaningless! If your house is burgled and the burglar is caught, in the court you, the hard-working house-owner, are considered to be guilty until you can prove your own innocence! The criminals have all the powers and sit like kings while the innocent victims are persecuted by the very law designed in the first place to protect them!
John C., Warwick, England

I have no faith whatsoever in our legal system or the police. A few years ago I was on business in Warwick and my company car was broken into and a pair of shoes which I had bought that morning were stolen. Fortunately I had the presence of mind to inform the shop were I bought them and sure enough the criminals tried to take them back for a refund and the criminals were apprehended.
Anyway I had to go to Coventry police station to give a statement. All I can say is that after that ordeal were I felt like I was the criminal I, like B. Thompson, will never co-operate with the police again. I went there of my own free will and was made to feel like a criminal while I was cooped up in a small windowless room. Never again.
Lee, UK


As flawed as the British justice system may be, I can't think of a better one

Mark M. Newdick, USA/UK
Before we start knocking yet another British institution, let's review it ...
1) A Presumption of Innocence: The cornerstone of British jurisprudence is alien to Europeans and most of the non-English speaking world. We want to give this up?
2) Trial by a Jury of one's Peers: Although government is undermining this basic British right (to make us more "European", no doubt), do we really want the social elite (e.g. judges) deciding the fate of us, the common folk?
3) Miscarriages of Justice: As awful as even one is, at least we're hearing about them! Is one to assume that it's all just perfect in Europe? Scary.
As flawed as the British justice system may be, I can't think of a better one.
Mark M. Newdick, USA/UK

I am big advocate of local courts run by local people. Less paper work and tougher justice. We must all remember that the Law is there to protect us. If it fails to work then we should simply forget about it and implement a new system of law and order in our own communities. Laws are only current opinion written down. We know that they don't work so we should rip them up.
Henry A, UK

I have no faith in the British legal system. I do have faith in the Police and feel that they are at the mercy of unrepresentative, inconsistent courts just like the rest of us. British judges seem to be very reluctant to punish people for serious and anti-social crimes, like drunk drivers who kill, but more than happy to throw the book at relatively minor financial crimes, like jailing single mothers who don't pay their TV licence. Unfortunately too many "professionals" involved in Law are egotists who treat the whole thing as a game in which they can earn huge amounts of cash.
Graeme, England


Please stop using the phrase 'Justice System'. It is not. It is the 'Legal System'

Richard, UK
Please stop using the phrase 'Justice System'. It is not. It is the 'Legal System' because the legal profession read it and apply it rather than interpret it with common sense as its writers must have intended originally. No one in the legal profession actually seems to care whether they do a good job or not, and, yes, I have been involved in a miscarriage of justice! Only the guilty get acquitted: the rest of us are far too trusting.
Richard, UK

Perhaps we should learn from the French who appoint a magistrate to work with the police in the investigation of serious crime. This ensures the police report to an independent person thus providing safeguards for those under investigation and also for the police from the malicious
Gerry, Scotland

Thank heavens we don't have a death penalty. Bit hard to overturn that once it's been carried out isn't it?
Alex Banks, Wales, Living in Sweden


I have little faith in a judicial system where evidence can be used, or unused in a selective manner

Eddy Weatherill, England
I have little faith in a judicial system where evidence can be used, or unused in a selective manner. There is also a political leaning in some instances to obtain convictions regardless of the facts. I do not believe that justice in civil or criminal cases can be seen to be done where Judges and the judiciary generally are not representative of the general population and are treated as a protected species. We all deserve better than the present system. There should be little room for error or political persuasion where justice is concerned.
Eddy Weatherill, England

In response to Steve, UK: Some crimes do not deserve any defence - the rape and murder of children for example. But back to the point the fact that the wrong people are punished and that others who are guilty without doubt get off on a technicality prove that the system is flawed. The answer, I don't have one, divine intervention perhaps.
SG, UK

There is no correlation between morality and legality. Neither is there any correlation between justice and 'the Law'. Our leaders are all morally and spiritually bankrupt.
P, UK

Until I have the absolute right to use whatever force I see fit against an intruder in my house I will continue to have no confidence in our so-called "justice" system.
Karl Peters, UK

More surveillance cameras would help distinguish between the guilty and the innocent, but that would contravene civil liberties and human rights.
Clive Mitchell, UK

In this country a person is innocent until proved guilty beyond doubt. If courts would simply keep to that principal 100% of the time, this would not be an issue.
Owen, UK


The judicial administration system in the UK relies on the goodwill of its staff to function

P.S., UK
I worked at a magistrates court for 10 years and my husband has worked for our local police force for 22 years. I have no faith in our justice system, having seen it from the inside and witnessing not just inefficiencies, but the criminals who know how to play the system and the defence solicitors who play along with them. The judicial administration system in the UK relies on the goodwill of its staff to function. Resources are stretched beyond belief and the frustration felt by police officers, court staff, prosecution lawyers etc has an impact on the level of service they provide to victims and witnesses. The British legal system is administered by some of the most caring and genuine people I have ever had the pleasure of working with. It's just a shame they are not supported by central government in their efforts to provide the people of this country with a legal system they can be proud of.
P.S., UK

I find it impossible to have confidence in the British judicial system. The establishment is not willing to face the appalling vista presented by institutionalised racism in the police service and a judiciary which is unwilling to believe that British justice is anything other than fair to all its citizens.
Ian Brady, Ireland


I think one of the most uncertain parts of the judicial system is jury selection

David Kelk, Wales
I think one of the most uncertain parts of the judicial system is jury selection. Thanks to the press, the task of finding an unbiased jury for even medium profile cases seems to be becoming as hard as winning the lottery.
David Kelk, Wales

B. Thompson complains that lawyers just care about winning the case. I have to agree, but also have to concede that that is what they are paid for. Then there is that little thing called 'acting in the client's best interests'. If they didn't just care about winning the case, they'd be liable for professional misconduct charges for acting contrary to their client's interests. But, it's not just defence lawyers that do this, the prosecution are just interested in getting a conviction. Why don't we criticise them? As a side thought, in a decent democratic society, everyone is entitled to a defence.
Steve, UK

Although I still respect police, I have nothing but contempt for the judicial system in this country. A few years ago I witnessed an assault on a friend of mine and gladly gave a statement to the police to that effect. Nearly two years later, when I'd forgotten about the whole thing, I get dragged to court to give evidence against my friend's attacker.

I found that instead of the defendant being on trial - a local thug, well known to the police and with an endless criminal record - it was me who was on trial. The defendant was protected by his defence lawyer while I was protected by no one. I was at the mercy of his lawyer and he humiliated me on that stand. Professional lawyers - they don't deserve the title. They just care about winning their case, and they'll take the side of whoever is writing the biggest cheque or will further their careers the most. That is what is fundamentally wrong with the legal system. I will never ever again co-operate in any way with the police, legal system, or any authorities. That is a sad and damning indictment against our ineffective legal system.
B. Thompson, UK


I feel that the press has a lot to answer for on this issue

Marcus, England
I feel that the press has a lot to answer for on this issue. In this era of sensationalism, rational debate and dialogue is stifled. This even enters the courthouse where any decision will be unfairly scrutinised by the press if they don't agree with it despite not knowing the full facts.
Marcus, England

What worries me about the system is that someone who, after conviction, still insists on their innocence cannot be considered for parole. Currently, it is part of a convict's rehabilitation that parole is only an option once they admit their guilt. We know, and therefore have to accept, that mistakes can be made. This arrogant attitude of the state towards parole must be changed.
Andy, UK

Is it any wonder that confidence is low whilst there are police officers still serving who have been prepared to frame people to get a conviction in the past, our jury system excludes people with any brains and the legal profession remains a law unto itself?
Steve, UK

Search BBC News Online

Advanced search options
Launch console
BBC RADIO NEWS
BBC ONE TV NEWS
WORLD NEWS SUMMARY
PROGRAMMES GUIDE
See also:


Links to more Talking Point stories