by Stella Kaye

Created on: March 06, 2008   Last Updated: December 28, 2008

DEVISE A FAIR JUSTICE SYSTEM WHICH CONVICTS THE GUILTY AND ACQUITS THE INNOCENT.

The people who suffer most at the hands of the UK Criminal Justice System are the innocent law-abiding citizens who have been falsely accused and wrongly convicted.

We all pay a price for these miscarriages of justice as ultimately it is the tax payer who has to foot the bill for wrongful convictions at a cost of more than 30,000 GB Pounds per prisoner.

The Justice System in the UK is convicting too many innocent people. This needs to change; prisons exist to reform and punish the guilty and are not intended to house the innocent because a faulty justice system keeps getting it wrong.

An accused person can be left in a police cell for three hours without food and water and interrogated even though they are innocent. Whatever they say in their defence can be twisted. It is far better to remain silent. The police don't concern themselves with either truth or innocence. Their job is to gather as much evidence as possible in order to secure a conviction. They will collect as many lies as they can and will treat the accused as guilty from day one with their "No smoke without fire" attitude.

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

"Don't worry," you will tell yourself, if ever you have the misfortune to be falsely accused. "I'm innocent... I'll be O.K... my innocence will be my best defence."

WRONG!

Every citizen should have a right to a fair trial. This means that a jury should be able to question any unfairness by both prosecution and defence barristers. The accused should not be denied a proper defence due to inadequate legal funding or representation or on grounds of lack of time and resources. They should not be fobbed off with excuses every step of the way and be led like a lamb to the slaughter.

Justice is supposed to be all about balance; the jury must be permitted to assess the situation by weighing everything in the balance. But how can it be weighed in the balance correctly when the jury are only presented with one side of the story? A conviction is only supposed to happen when the jury are convinced "Beyond all reasonable doubt" that the defendant is guilty but if they are only presented with lies what hope is there for the innocent? Surely a verdict of "Not proven" would be far more sensible in cases of accusation alone?

A trial I attended recently devoted three days to the prosecution and less than two hours to the defence. It was a complete farce and a travesty of justice.

• 1
• 2
• Next Page >>