Latest news with #justiceSystem
Daily Mail
2 days ago
- General
- Daily Mail
EXCLUSIVE I was married to Lyle Menendez. I'll never forget one thing he said to me behind bars... it proves the brothers SHOULD walk free
I don't think there is a person in America who isn't familiar with my ex-husband and his brother. Their names have become synonymous with one of the most famous crimes of the twentieth century. It's impossible to utter their names – Lyle and Erik Menendez – without provoking strong feelings in others. There are those who think they should be locked up forever and, increasingly, there are those who think they've served their time and should be set free.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- General
- The Guardian
Readers reply: Should barristers have to defend the ‘indefensible'? Or should they be able to refuse clients?
Is the 'cab rank' rule for barristers fair? It means every accused party in the UK gets the legal representation they're entitled to – but it also means barristers may have to defend people who have done things they feel are indefensible. J McBride, Birmingham Send new questions to nq@ The error Mr McBride makes is in assuming the client is guilty and that his barrister is trying to get him off. The defence barrister is there to test the prosecution's evidence since the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the client is guilty as charged. We've all read about cases where exculpatory evidence has been withheld, forensic results contaminated or mistaken identity has led to wrongful conviction. You cannot expect a layperson to know the rules of disclosure, the admissibility of evidence or the scope of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. He needs a professional to ensure his rights are protected. Beyond that, if the prosecution evidence cannot be discredited, he will be convicted. Guilty or innocent, the cab rank system enables justice to be served: the guilty to be convicted and the innocent to be acquitted. Nicky Ottaway JP, Surrey Surely a barrister is defending the person not the offence? A barrister is never defending the indefensible: they are defending a person who may or may not have done the thing that is indefensible. It is for the state to prove that the defendant is guilty of the indefensible. Whenever we see a barrister being questioned over their morality when taking the task of defending the accused in such a case we are witnessing somebody calling for a potentially innocent person to be convicted unfairly for a crime of which we know only limited detail. John Close, by email After 20 years as a barrister, and another 20 as a judge, I would suggest the rule is more often observed in breach than observance. Barristers' clerks, who make the bookings, are well aware of what work each barrister is willing to do or not. If the work is not to the taste of the relevant barrister, they will be 'unavailable', or the fee will be preposterous. Martin Kurrein, Norfolk How can you repeatedly defend a client you know is guilty? Surely it turns you into a liar as well, but it's what some barristers are known for, and take pride in. And ripping into victims who are already traumatised because it's your job to discredit them, irrespective of the facts. Yet the law is supposed to be about justice. LorLala Everyone is entitled to have a defence. Not necessarily the best defence if they don't have money. Professionals have to deal with offenders no matter what they have done. They are still human beings, even if we disapprove strongly with their actions. Offenders may have mitigating circumstances, which need presenting to the court. One has to put one's personal feelings to one side in order to work with them. scouser58 The age-old answer to this kind of question talks about legal representatives not making value or guilty/innocent judgments against clients accused of horrible things as that's the job of juries and sometimes judges. However, I have a better answer: think 'Testing the system, not defending an accused person.' Barristers represent accused people to ensure that the legal system itself is fair, robust, impartial and following its own rules. With every case they essentially run a legal system MOT, and make sure that if someone is eventually found guilty or innocent they can be assured that the result would have been the same no matter the person involved. That's the theory. But we all know it doesn't always work like that. Ferg Ferguson, by email It should not be for us to predetermine the optics of a particular case and based upon that, decide if we will represent someone. That would be justice in the court of public opinion, where emotion, rather than evidence and procedure, is the driving force. Tasaddat Hussain, barrister, Manchester The cab rank rule is needed to prevent younger barristers from being unable to access more complex and high level cases in order to help them learn – it is almost guaranteed that senior barristers would cherrypick cases if the cab rank rule was not in place. As an aspiring barrister, I would defend the indefensible that the cab rank rule has forced me to take on, even if I know I am bound to lose against the prosecution. Because, through that trial, we will have found the truth, and brought justice to the victims of any indefensible crimes. tacobrit If a defendant cannot secure representation, his trial would not be fair. A legally qualified barrister versus a layperson does not afford equality of arms. A criminal trial of an unrepresented defendant takes considerably longer than a trial of a represented defendant and incurs far greater costs. Moreover, a barrister representing a defendant in a rape trial will know the rules of what questions are not permitted to be put to a victim of rape; an unrepresented defendant would not and, regardless of a judge's attempts to keep the defendant 'in line', the victim would endure a more harrowing ordeal than would otherwise be the case. Gary Blackwell, by email I was always asked how I could defend someone I thought was guilty but never how I could prosecute someone I thought was innocent. For me the whole point of defending or prosecuting was to help the jury arrive at the right verdict. If, having fought my client's case as vigorously as permitted, he or she was convicted, then the likelihood of guilt was increased and therefore justice served. John Maxwell, by email While it may mean that barristers must sometimes defend individuals accused of indefensible acts, this is a cornerstone of a fair legal system. The role of a defence barrister is not to endorse the crime but to ensure that the prosecution proves its case beyond reasonable doubt, a burden that protects the innocent. Defending the 'indefensible' strengthens the legal system. It sharpens the skills of defence barristers and maintains a high standard of scrutiny for all prosecutions. As the saying goes, 'It is better that 12 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.' The cab rank rule, therefore, is not only fair, it is essential for justice. Lola Ogunjobi, Kent The cab rank rule is correct and gives barristers, especially younger barristers, the opportunity to improve their experience. Something that cannot be obtained from law books. nlygo My experience was that the so-called 'cab-rank' rule is capable of being avoided by barristers which explains why, in areas of the law such as personal injury or professional negligence, barristers tend to represent either claimants or defendants but seldom both. Much of that is, I suspect, attributable to specific barristers' chambers building up a reputation for either claimant or defendant work. However, I believe it would be a great mistake to abolish the rule. Even though its operation may be imperfect, it embodies important principles which ought to be preserved. Edward Coulson, North Yorkshire If barristers choose who to defend, the public and politicians can accuse them of condoning in some way the behaviour of a person who is ultimately found guilty of a dreadful crime. As it is, the barrister can say with perfect truth 'Everyone, has the right to a defence and I have no choice but to do the best I can to present that defence, irrespective of my beliefs.' Working in IT, I don't get a final choice on what I do. Unless there is a clear conflict of interest or it places the barrister's mental health at serious risk, the cab rank rule should apply. Lewis Graham, Hertfordshire
Malay Mail
3 days ago
- General
- Malay Mail
France's prison population reaches record high, overcrowding crisis deepens
PARIS, May 31 — France's prison population hit a record high on May 1, with 83,681 inmates held in facilities that have a capacity of just 62,570, justice ministry data showed today. Over the past year, France's prison population grew by 6,000 inmates, taking the occupancy rate to 133.7 per cent. The record overcrowding has even seen 23 out of France's 186 detention facilities operating at more than twice their capacity. Justice Minister Gerald Darmanin, who has called the overcrowding crisis "unacceptable", has suggested building new facilities to accommodate the growing prison population. The hardline minister announced in mid-May a plan to build a high-security prison in French Guiana -- an overseas territory situated north of Brazil -- for the most "dangerous" criminals, including drug kingpins. Prison overcrowding is "bad for absolutely everyone," said Darmanin in late April, citing the "appalling conditions" for prisoners and "the insecurity and violence" faced by prison officers. A series of coordinated attacks on French prisons in April saw assailants torching cars, spraying the entrance of one prison with automatic gunfire, and leaving mysterious inscriptions. The assaults embarrassed the right-leaning government, whose tough-talking ministers -- Darmanin and Interior Minister Bruno Retailleau -- have vowed to step up the fight against narcotics. And in late April, lawmakers approved a major new bill to combat drug-related crime, with some of France's most dangerous drug traffickers facing detention in high-security prison units in the coming months. France ranks among the worst countries in Europe for prison overcrowding, placing third behind Cyprus and Romania, according to a Council of Europe study published in June 2024. — AFP
Daily Mail
4 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
Trump's pardon czar reveals reason reality TV stars Todd and Julie Chrisley were freed from jail
President Trump's pardon czar defended the controversial pardons for reality stars Todd and Julie Chrisley as she said the justice system was weaponized against them. Alice Marie Johnson, who was pardoned herself by Trump in 2020 before taking over his pardon process this year, told Fox News that the Chrisleys were freed because they were 'overly sentenced.' 'They both received a combined sentence of 19 years for a first-time nonviolent offense and, if you look at their case and how it went down, I'm going to say that, in Georgia, it was truly weaponized.' Johnson said that the couple were endeared to the president because when they went on trial in 2022, prosecutors 'called them the Trumps of Georgia.' The couple were found guilty in 2022 on charges of bank fraud, wire fraud and tax evasion, after defrauding community banks in Atlanta from $36 million by submitting false financial documents. Todd was sentenced to 12 years in prison and Julie received a seven-year sentence, but now both walk free after Trump pardoned them earlier this week. Johnson said their white-collar crimes showed her that 'they don't pose a risk to society', and said she hopes they use their freedom to praise President Trump. 'I know that they're going to use their voices and their platform to uplift the president's agenda,' she said. Alice Marie Johnson, who was pardoned herself by Trump in 2020 before taking over his pardon process this year, said that the Chrisleys were freed because they were 'overly sentenced' and 'do not pose a risk to the community' Todd and Julie were each released from their prisons in Florida and Kentucky, respectively, hours after Trump signed their pardons on Wednesday evening. Johnson said the decision to release the reality TV stars came after she assessed their 'rehabilitation' behind bars. 'Have they not only admitted, but are they remorseful for what they've done?' she said she asked herself. Johnson said she takes these considerations on board for any potential pardon, with Trump also pardoning rapper NBA Young Boy and former Congressman Michael Grimm this week. 'I look at what the staff says about them… and do they pose a safety risk to the community?' she said. 'That's one of the big things, because we don't want to release someone that would pose a risk to the community.' Johnson was previously convicted of cocaine trafficking in 1996 and was sentenced to life imprisonment, but was released after 21 years when Trump granted her clemency. He later pardoned her, and named her as his administration's 'Pardon Czar' this year. Grimm's pardon comes 11 years after he was convicted of tax fraud. He served seven months in jail and carried out 200 hours of community service for the offense. He won reelection in 2014 despite being under indictment for underreporting wages and revenue at a restaurant he ran. However, he resigned the following year after pleading guilty. Grimm, who notoriously threatened to throw a reporter off a balcony during the 2014 State of the Union, was previously accused of having sex in the bathroom of a bar after spending more than 15 minutes locked away with a female friend. Last year he was paralyzed from the chest down when he was thrown off a horse during a polo tournament. The president also pardoned a labor union leader who pleaded guilty to failing to report gifts from an advertising firm. James Callahan, of Lindenhurst, New York, was general president of the International Union of Operating Engineers when he accepted - but failed to properly report - receiving at least $315,000 in tickets to sporting events and concerts and other amenities from a company that the union used to place ads. U.S. District Judge Ana Reyes was scheduled to sentence Callahan on Wednesday. On Tuesday, however, Callahan's attorneys notified the court of Trump's 'full and unconditional' pardon and asked for the sentencing hearing to be vacated. Earlier this month, prosecutors had recommended a prison sentence of six months for Callahan, calling him 'one of the most powerful union leaders in the country.' They said Callahan's salary and other compensation topped $500,000 annually. Now retired and living in Florida, he has a net worth of more than $5 million, according to prosecutors. Meanwhile, ex-Chicago gang leader Larry Hoover has had his sentence commuted. Hoover has been serving multiple life sentences for murder and running a criminal enterprise. He was already serving a 200-year state sentence for the murder of a rival when he was indicted in federal court in 2995, before he was charged with continuing to oversee his murderous drug gang from prison and was convicted in 1997 then sentencing to life in prison. Trump also said Wednesday that he's considering pardons for the men who plotted to kidnap Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. 'I'm going to look at it. I will take a look at it. It's been brought to my attention,' he said in the Oval Office on Wednesday. 'I did watch the trial. It looked to me like somewhat of a railroad job, I'll be honest with you.' 'It looked to me like some people said some stupid things. You know, they were drinking, and I think they said stupid things,' he added. Trump claimed there was bipartisan support for the pardon. 'A lot of people are asking me that question from both sides actually,' he said. 'A lot of people think they got railroaded. A lot of people think they got railroaded.' In 2020, during Trump's first term, federal prosecutors charged six people with conspiring to kidnap Whitmer.
News24
5 days ago
- General
- News24
Fear and loathing: Fixing the system in a country at war
Several years ago, while living in the UK, my relative's car was broken into and his GPS was stolen. The incident was reported to the police, but with no expectation of results. After all, in South Africa, reports are often filed solely for insurance purposes, with no real hope of police investigation. Surprisingly, a few weeks later, the UK police found the perpetrator - a suspected drug user. They returned the GPS along with a letter from the suspect, expressing deep regret for the theft. I doubt even one South African could tell a similar story after getting robbed at home. Fast forward to present-day South Africa. Just a week after a government delegation led by President Cyril Ramaphosa admitted in the glare of international media during a meeting with US President Donald Trump that the country's crime was out of control, tragedy has struck. A 30-year-old woman was murdered in what appears to be a horrific kidnapping and robbery attempt gone wrong, leaving her family in mourning. Public outcry has spurred swift police action, resulting in the arrest of one suspect and an ongoing manhunt for three others. However, cases like this are sadly the exception; more often than not, reports of crime lead nowhere, and cases grow cold. In this week's Friday Briefing, former SARS executive and crime analyst Johann van Loggerenberg unpacks how systemic failures in the criminal justice system have plunged the country into chaos. We also have a contribution from the News24 investigations team, which casts a critical eye on how senior police officials are more focused on jockeying for rank and influence than on fixing the system or combating crime. To round up the analysis on the state of SA's crime situation, Yale University Professor Jonny Steinberg delves into the role politics play in the state's inaction to deal with high crime rates. Additionally, in-depth writer Muhammad Hussain interviews Communications Minister Solly Malatsi about his draft ICT policy, which has stirred significant debate. Explore these thought-provoking submissions below. We no longer have the luxury of time to pontificate on crime We simply do not have the luxury of time to pontificate on crime anymore. We need to do something about it. Getting the criminal justice system to operate as a system is the start, writes Johann van Loggerenberg. Read the rest of the submission here. COP COLD WAR | Leaks, accusations and smears: SA's top cops at war as crime rages unabated A push for key positions in the top police ranks is under way, which could see a seismic shift in the criminal justice ecosystem. However, as the News24 investigations team highlights, that is unlikely to result in addressing SA's high crime rate. Read the rest of the submission here. Sharon Seretlo/Gallo Images Fear and politics: Hidden barriers to reducing SA's violent crime Jonny Steinberg reflects on South Africa's crime rate and why it remains persistently high, arguing that part of the problem is that the state has been criminalised, and detectives investigating violent crimes fear that fellow law-enforcement officials might impede them or even have them killed. Read the rest of the submission here. Q&A with Solly Malatsi | 'Peel off paranoia, conspiracies, propaganda' of draft policy directive Communications and Digital Technologies Minister Solly Malatsi defends his draft policy direction that would allow multinational companies alternatives to the 30% local ownership requirement in a Q&A with in-depth writer Muhammad Hussain. He clarifies that the status quo prevails until the process is over, meaning one shouldn't expect Starlink to enter the market soon.
