I know this is probably wrong place to raise this, I was following the trial of David Duckenfield on the news today and have to say I feel some unease.
I am sure a lot of people would say he should be jailed for a long time; my concern though is that this is a massive cross to bare for doing you job badly and arrogantly and if he is found guilty of causing the deaths of 96 people, he will go away for many , many years. Does he really deserve to have this all on his shoulders. More importantly, he will be found guilty; the jury cannot fail to have a good knowledge of this and its background and the emotion around the victims families make it feel to me a little like a done deal.
Don't get me wrong, he was arrogant and did a bad job and blamed the victims and lied but...I just feel uneasy about what will inevitably come from it.
I know this is probably wrong place to raise this, I was following the trial of David Duckenfield on the news today and have to say I feel some unease.
I am sure a lot of people would say he should be jailed for a long time; my concern though is that this is a massive cross to bare for doing you job badly and arrogantly and if he is found guilty of causing the deaths of 96 people, he will go away for many , many years. Does he really deserve to have this all on his shoulders. More importantly, he will be found guilty; the jury cannot fail to have a good knowledge of this and its background and the emotion around the victims families make it feel to me a little like a done deal.
Don't get me wrong, he was arrogant and did a bad job and blamed the victims and lied but...I just feel uneasy about what will inevitably come from it.
It is kind of a result of the scandalous delay for all sorts of awful reasons in getting towards the truth. Otherwise the blame / likely guilt would have been much more widely shared rather than so much left to be on his shoulders.
I understand where you're coming from, JonH, but I don't really agree.
Gross negligence manslaughter is an offence exactly for this sort of case - if it can be proved that he was GROSSLY negligent when he breached his standard of care, and that caused someone to die, then he is guilty.
It seems quite bizarre to say he shouldn't be guilty because so MANY people died.
The fact that others may have been at fault too is not the question.
Each person's culpability should be judged independently.
The fact that it's an emotive subject is irrelevant too - otherwise no cases would be brought in highly charged cases.
It is for the judge to explain to the jury what is needed for GROSS negligence - a jury will understand that, for someone in his rank, certain things are unforeseeable, accidents, and certain things unclear, 50:50 decisions etc. and certain things obvious.
If found guilty, the judge has complete discretion in the sentencing so it is there that other factors can be factored in.
Hi c.d. - no , I understand. My not very well made point was that there is so much prior press and emotion around this and he is the focal point of it all now, criminally, I can't see how a jury can fail to not be swayed and effectively he is already inevitably going to be found guilty. That's what sits badly with me mainly.
I have more faith in British stubbornness and sense of fair play
There was obviously no handbook for exactly what happened that day, I think the jury will understand that it is not simply a question of if he made a poor decision.
But if he personally made decisions that were patently and obviously wrong, that took no regard for the duty of care he owed those people (as opposed to the duty he owed the football club), then I have no problem with him being found guilty.
I think it is important that he is judged against what were considered good standards at the time of the disaster and the general standard of implementation. What is important is that we create an environment were people can be honest and open about mistakes. Understand them and implement change. Also present standards should be reviewed and compared with the best stadia and logistical set ups internationally as part of a cyclical process with a view to being proactive about continuous improvement as opposed to a very expensive (to the state) reactive process driven by litigation.
I have more faith in British stubbornness and sense of fair play
There was obviously no handbook for exactly what happened that day, I think the jury will understand that it is not simply a question of if he made a poor decision.
But if he personally made decisions that were patently and obviously wrong, that took no regard for the duty of care he owed those people (as opposed to the duty he owed the football club), then I have no problem with him being found guilty.
I have zero faith in British stubbornness and sense of fair play! When such a headwind has arisen. IF he was found not guilty, I can imagine the outcry now (ie wrong outcome, justice not served etc) that it is almost unimaginable that he wont be found guilty. He may well be guilty but I dont see how that verdict will be reached without it having been influenced by all that goes around it.
I guess that is the judges role though, so lets see
Yes, we both agree that it's very much up to the judge to identify the clear legal points for the jury.
But the very fact that there are several people here with serious misgivings means that not everyone is swept away by the emotion of the thing so there's no reason the 12 jury members should be any different (or at least some of them).
The point about stadia standards going forward is a separate point and not really to do with criminal prosecutions. If we have no statute of limitations in serious offences that's because we believe that all crimes should be prosecuted, if there's a reasonable chance of success, for the classic punishment/protect the piblic/send a message to society reasons.
