The legal system is just mad

Cant believe people are turning this into a should you not be able to plead not guilty argument!
In this case tbe guy was arrested miles outside nick where he was supposed to be, therefore to plead otherwise is just taking the mick and putting ore expense on the taxpayer!

 

Well someone suggested the legal system is "just mad" for allowing him to plead not guilty which is obviously nonsense, so it's only right to challenge that.

 

Challenge what exactly? In this case its bloody ridiculous accepting a not guilty plea! Its undeniable!

 

We have a legal system based on the presumption of innocence and every ones right to a fair trial. Long May that be the case.

 

What are you proposing the law change to be though? People can’t plead not guilty if there’s evidence? Certain crimes don’t have trials and people are just instantly declared guilty? Actually think through what you are advocating for here.

 

No, it's bloody ridiculous to suggest that society should dispense with the fundamental right to have a trial. If you think through the implications of what you and the OP are suggesting for more than about 2 seconds you'll realise how daft and dangerous your thinking is.

 

There is a good side to this, he'll get a bigger sentence because his plea.

It will waste millions of pounds on a trial of course but hey, we can afford to spend 37 Billion on test track and trace that never worked and have no plans to claw it back, so what's a couple of million?

 

Give over as I said in response to JD it’s beyond not even evidence , the guy escaped he was caught and brought back, therefore a not guilty pleas is just spurious and will cost the taxpayer a fortune.
I’m not advocating banning not guilty pleas at all but if you break out of prison and are found outside, it’s not even a serious question.

 

That’s exactly what you’re advocating though. You either think he should be allowed to plead not guilty or you’re banning them in cherry picked circumstances.

 

It'd cost the taxpayer a lot more for him to sue for violation of his right to a fair trial under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

Under your system who exactly decides who is and isn't entitled to a fair trial?

 

Thanks for that. A few have had a go at me for saying how stupid it is that he can plead not guilty when he has apparently been caught in the act of escaping. I’d double whatever sentence he gets for wasting court time.

 

He’s arguing he didn’t break out though. Maybe he’s going to argue that he was removed by someone and is being framed? Everyone the other day was telling me that we have to presume innocence until guilt is determined by a court and not voice our own opinion on the matter based on what we’ve read in the media and today I’m being told that someone shouldn’t legally even be entitled to a trial despite everything they know about this case is based on what they’ve read in the media.

 

oh give up, fair trial my arse ,there is no doubt ! the guy escaped, he was caught and brought back!
Any trial ought to be the quickest in history,

 

I see he's gone for the Shaggy defence.

 

It's not stupid, it's a fundamental right.

 

No one against making his punishment worse, that’s what will happen. It’s the saying he shouldn’t be allowed to have a trial that’s the crazy bit. Everyone gets a trial, no matter what they’ve done or how obvious it is.

 

Do you believe him then JD, he was out on his own on a push bike when he was caught so he was hardly there under duress.

 

And it probably will be but he’ll have one because that’s what a fair society does.

 

Can't you see that if you deny people the ability to plead not guilty you're denying the right to a fair trial?