Det Con Atkinson said: “Beneath his veneer of jovial respectability, Watson was a predatory paedophile whose vile conduct only came to light when the victims found the courage to disclose his offending to professionals, family and police.
“It is to Watson’s shame that having been confronted with his crimes he subjected his victims to a further two years of anguish as they waited to face him in court.
He falsely maintained his innocence despite all evidence to the contrary – but to no avail, as the jury saw through his lies."He was convicted by a jury. The justice system has worked.
So...why the suggestion from the cop that he shouldn't have availed himself of his right to a trial? That he has some sort of obligation to accept his guilt and not subject his accusers to the 'trauma' of a trial?
After all, juries can be funny creatures!
10 comments:
"A former chocolate worker"
No, I mustn't, it's too easy . . .
After all, juries can be funny creatures!
Yep, ask Casey Anthony.
And why 2 years? A 2 year wait effectively denies justice to victims and also to innocent accused people.
Bunny
The wait is one of the problems with the justice system at the moment. It was found that the criminal does not associate the sentence with the crime that they have committed but with going to court. However if the defendant goes to court quickly they associate the punishment with the crime, strangely enough the offending rate goes to down as a result.
As Woodsy says this wait denies justice to both the innocent and the victim.
There is nothing puzzling about this at all. In my experience I have heard Judges make comments along the same lines many times and police officers have made this comment many times in the past after a jury has delivered its result. Usually it happens that the defendant has exercised their right to go not guilty despite being advised by their counsel that the evidence against them was overwhelming from the start and that an early plea would be beneficial. Woodsy42 asks why two years? Welcome to the world I used to inhabit. Delays of 2/3 years are not uncommon, it depends on availability of Judges, Counsel and witnesses and after all the defence would never delay proceedings so that a case is delayed and witnesses lose interest would they? The whole system is somewhat chaotic. Usually witnesses are warned overnight and in the case of police officers it is not unknown for whole teams to be warned to attend court on overnight notice only for the defence not to need them, of course if a police officer or other witness cannot attend their evidence will be deemed to be vital and attempts will be made to adjourn or dismiss the case.
The whole CJS has inbuilt inefficiencies and while the legal profession regard it as all being a jolly wheeze inefficiencies will persist. The CPS share some of the blame but all sides will seek to gain an advantage, usually at the expense of Joe public who is giving evidence.
Retired.
So...why the suggestion from the cop that he shouldn't have availed himself of his right to a trial? That he has some sort of obligation to accept his guilt and not subject his accusers to the 'trauma' of a trial?
Actually yes, we do think that people who are guilty and know they are ought to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity.
Morally, if nothing else, it seems correct: better, of course, not to commit the crime in the first place, but if you do commit a crime, then morally one ought to as soon as possible give oneself up, admit guilt, and accept the consequences of one's wrongdoing.
This even has a procedural place in the system: it's why sentences are reduced for early guilty pleas, by up to a third for pleading guilty at the first opportunity, with progressively lesser deductions until pleading guilty on the first day of trial (due to having caused all the expense of making the CPS prepare a case).
I think, once the trial starts, if you are found guilty, then you get the full weight of whatever sentences the judge deems appropriate.
(This more often comes up the other way around, with people objecting to a criminal getting a reduced sentence for an early guilty plea: interesting to see it in a case where, thanks to falsely maintaining his innocence for as long as he could, the criminal will have been sentences to the maximum extent possible.)
But to answer the question, yes, if you know you did something wrong you do have a moral obligation to confess it and accept your punishment, don't you? I mean, even children know that that's what they ought to do if they do something wrong (not that many of them do, but they know they ought to…)
XX Watson was a predatory paedophile XX
Exactly the sort of person that worrys himself to death over correct moral decissions, right?
"And why 2 years? A 2 year wait effectively denies justice to victims and also to innocent accused people."
Good question. Incompetence?
"Usually it happens that the defendant has exercised their right to go not guilty despite being advised by their counsel that the evidence against them was overwhelming from the start..."
Why not, though, since most criminals have a risk-taking attitude, and the jury system can throw up some bizarre results. It's probably a better bet than the lotto!
"Actually yes, we do think that people who are guilty and know they are ought to plead guilty at the earliest opportunity."
But maybe he doesn't think he is. It's his right. Exercising it is not some sort of 'extra revenge' on the alleged victim.
The procedure for sending cases 'up the road' to the CC has changed over the years. It used to be that there would be several appearances at the Magistrates Court followed by a committal to the CC. In some cases there would be an 'old style' committal where all the evidence in the case would be heard by the lower court to decide if there was a case to answer. For a few unscrupulous briefs it was an excellent way to muddy the waters and scare the prosecution witnesses off. The case now is that on the first appearance at Mags court in a serious case the magistrates will immediately decline jurisdiction and commit to the CC. I believe the the magistrates will then only decide if bail is granted or not. Once the case is at CC it should be managed by one of the judges and there will be hearings to ensure that both sides have their cases ready to go. As I said we then wait for witness availability, availability of counsel etc. The more serious cases will have a fixed date set, usually some months in advance. Other less serious cases will be on an early warned list and may pop up overnight. You then have the challenge of getting witnesses from all sides to attend at short notice. There are also many opportunities for a defendant to delay proceedings such as sacking counsel half way through a trial or then defending themselves. I am afraid that delays occur, sometimes through sharp practices by the defence, sometimes by the prosecution not being ready although in my experience the defence are given more leeway than the prosecution. Incompetence? perhaps you'd like to give it a go sorting it out. You wouldn't get far.
Credit is always given to a guilty plea at an early date. In most cases a defendant will have had legal advice, if they choose not to take that advice that is down to them and they will not gain credit for an early plea.
Retired
But maybe he doesn't think he is. It's his right.
Well, given he had sex with underage children, it's a bit difficult to believe he did it without noticing, which is what him not thinking he's guilty would have us believe.
Exercising it is not some sort of 'extra revenge' on the alleged victim
Criminal law is not about the victim. That's why the Crown prosecutes criminal cases, not the victim. Criminal law is entirely about the guilt of the accused.
And if the accused knows they are guilty — as in this case it seems difficult to believe they could not — then going for a jury trial inthenhope that they might get away with it does indeed seem to be morally reprehensible (in that first they are trying to get an unjust result, ie that they are not punished, and second they are costing the CPS, Ie the taxpayer, ie us, money) and therefore deserving of extra punishment.
Post a Comment