What checks and balances are currently in place and how crazy are these - i.e. witnesses and sometimes defendants verbally agreeing to tell the truth but not wired up to a lie detector.
Ok, lie detectors are not 100% accurate, but surely a 90-95% accuracy rate (or whatever it is) will at least give a good indication of what is the truth and what is lies.
You are aware that eye witness testimony is about the
least reliable form of evidence that exists, and lie detectors work on the person being tested believing what they are saying. Simply because someone believes what they are saying doesn't mean its accurate or even true. That's the reason why they are not used in legal cases.
Even forensic evidence cannot be trusted, as with the Barry George case.
Yes of course it can, however you seem to forget that your mob/media solution would have not seen a different result in 2001.
After all Barry George won libel cases against three newspapers based on the coverage they gave at the time of his trial.
The legal system is also the only reason why he is free today, trial by mob/media doesn't exactly have an appeals system now does it.
Say 2 different people are on trial for an offence - with exact same details of the crime. Money could buy an extremely capable legal team or laywer for the one who could afford it. The other, without the same finances available, might have to settle for someone possibly less capable.
Which potentially could result in a different outcome.
And mobs and newspapers don't operate based on similar motivations? The largest newspaper in the UK is owned by a family that has a clear political bent and as such would have no problem at all biasing coverage to sell papers, the innocence or guilt of an individual be damned.
So is all that as unfair as mob justice / trial by media in certain situaitons like of Jimmy Saville?
And who decides what those situations are? If someone is found innocent and the press (for whatever reason) disagree do we let them loose?
That's all I'm asking, I'm not talking about the entire justice system having trial by media / mob justice, just comparing the Jimmy Saville situation to other mishaps of justice and saying - in this one case, would it really be that bad...?
Yes of course it would.
Every issue you raise with the legal system in the UK would still apply (and in most cases to a much greater degree) with mob/media justice, not only that but zero controls would exists to learn from mistakes and/or correct judgement.
Personally, I don't think so..but, I guess you're not going to agree..!
No worries though...each to their own 👍
Indeed, but I have to honestly say I don't think you have considered the ramifications of what you are suggesting.
Say you were arrested on suspicion of stabbing someone, you are innocent but were also in the area at the time and fitted the description of the person who carried out the attack. The case never gets to court because the police and CPS agree that you are not the man, however in the absence of any other suspect the press and local mobs are freely allowed to target you and administer whatever form of retribution they feel is appropriate.
The above situation is one that could all to easily occur under the approach you have outlined, because you didn't do it you can't be charged as no evidence exists (apart from eyewitnesses some of whom say its you). Your approach has no controls to stop anyone from simply assuming the Police are incompetent in finding the evidence or you have 'paid them off', etc, etc.
Due process is not perfect, but your second option is not a suitable alternative (even in limited cases). You focus on a few (high profile) cases while ignoring that the majority of the time the system works.
