An e-petition that makes sense?

Burnsy2023 · 31 Jul 2009 at 18:35

The first one in ages I've actually thought was a good idea

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/NotGuilty2Guilty/

Will it change anything? Probably not, but made me feel a bit better

Luke · 31 Jul 2009 at 18:37

Makes no difference if it is sensible/popular etc.
They all get ignored.

JBuk · 31 Jul 2009 at 18:38

I'm not in favour of it , the legal world is a minefield and sometimes people may change their minds for legitimate reasons due to bad or good advice from their legal team

Werewolf · 31 Jul 2009 at 19:06

The petition is a bit of a joke.

They already give a higher discount for not guilty early, which reduces to the point where if you plead guilty on the day of the trail it is significantly less* (but there is still some, as it still reduces the cost to the taxpayer and saves witnesses from giving evidence).

*IIRC there are 3 or 4 levels of sentance reduction based on the time of the plea, with the lowest reduction coming on the day of the trial.

Azagoth · 31 Jul 2009 at 19:14

That No.10 petition site is nothing more than a cynical ploy of a failing Government trying to look like they actually give a ****! Whereas in reality all the petitions just get ignored.

Energize · 31 Jul 2009 at 19:34

If you read the sentencing guidelines website you'll see they already do this. People who plead guilty earlier get bigger sentence discounts.

http://www.sentencing-guidelines.gov.uk/docs/Reduction in Sentence-final.pdf

Meridian · 31 Jul 2009 at 20:04

JBuk said:
I'm not in favour of it , the legal world is a minefield and sometimes people may change their minds for legitimate reasons due to bad or good advice from their legal team

However, by for the most common reason is that they did the deed, but wanted to see if there was enough evidence against them to make a guilty verdict likely. Once it's obvious that they'll get found guilty they roll over to try to get a reduction. In fact, IIRC they can give up at any point up until the jury retires.

M

Energize · 31 Jul 2009 at 20:13

Meridian said:
However, by for the most common reason is that they did the deed, but wanted to see if there was enough evidence against them to make a guilty verdict likely. Once it's obvious that they'll get found guilty they roll over to try to get a reduction. In fact, IIRC they can give up at any point up until the jury retires.

They see the evidence long before they are even charged.

elroberto · 31 Jul 2009 at 20:37

Look at the most popular petition there to sse how much attention they pay to them.

gillywibble · 31 Jul 2009 at 20:41

Signed.

Greebo · 31 Jul 2009 at 20:56

bah, pointless petition as the law already follows this rule.

Meridian · 31 Jul 2009 at 22:10

Energize said:
They see the evidence long before they are even charged.

But they haven't yet seen it presented in court - that is, how credible the witnesses might be under cross-examination. Nor have they been certain that all the witnesses will appear: another old Defence trick is to call absolutely everyone, even if they don't plan to contest the evidence. If any fail to appear they ask for an adjournment (enough of those and the case is thrown out). If they all show up the defendant pleads guilty.

M

Strife212 · 31 Jul 2009 at 22:13

This practice exists as the defence hope that a witness may fail to show up at court (or similar) and the case will be dismissed on a technicality. It can also provide extra work for defence solicitors.

The defendant knows they are guilty from the beginning and could enter that plea at the first hearing. The result of this practice is the wasting of court time and thousands of pounds of public money on court costs, witness care, police and all other bodies associated with the justice system. More importantly it needlessly extends the agony for the victims and witnesses in the case.

Makes sense to me.

semi-pro waster · 1 Aug 2009 at 09:12

If they increase the tariff on those who plead not guilty before pleading guilty later then where is the incentive for people to change their plea at some early(ish) point and save the tax payer the expense/inconvenience of a full trial?

It might lead to more people pleading guilty and earlier but is that justice? In an ideal World justice should not be just about the cost, it should be about getting a fair trial.

And pleading guilty too early before you know the case against you looks rather like throwing your hat into the ring before you even know if there is a ring there.

Strife212 · 1 Aug 2009 at 10:14

The point is that the defendant doesn't need to find out if they are guilty or not because they already know.

deuse · 1 Aug 2009 at 10:29

Has anyone looked at the Rejected petitions? here is a few

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce corporal punishment for Prime Ministers who lie whilst in office.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Send Chris Hedley to Outer Mongolia until he has recovered from the plague

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to give freedom to Tooting

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Force terestrial television newsreaders to wear underpants on their head

This is the best one

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to impose a maximum weight limit for women wearing stiletto heels
as they pose a massive threat to other members of the public on dance floors and in crowded bars nationwide

LMAO

Efour · 1 Aug 2009 at 10:42

i voted for charlie

semi-pro waster · 1 Aug 2009 at 11:00

Strife212 said:
The point is that the defendant doesn't need to find out if they are guilty or not because they already know.

But they might want to find out what evidence is going to be presented against them. Throwing your hands up early doors and admitting guilt might be noble and honest but a principle rule for any defence lawyer is to make the prosecution prove their case - anything less and you'd be failing in your duty as their representative.

This isn't so much an incentive for people to plead guilty early, more a disincentive to changing the plea later.

JBuk · 1 Aug 2009 at 11:52

Strife212 said:
The point is that the defendant doesn't need to find out if they are guilty or not because they already know.

What about cases where the defendant genuinely thinks they are not guilty of commiting the crime they are being prosecuted for yet at the beginning of the trial they are advised they stand no chance of winning and should plead guilty?

agnes · 1 Aug 2009 at 13:48

deuse said:
Has anyone looked at the Rejected petitions? here is a few

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to introduce corporal punishment for Prime Ministers who lie whilst in office.

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Send Chris Hedley to Outer Mongolia until he has recovered from the plague

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to give freedom to Tooting

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to Force terestrial television newsreaders to wear underpants on their head

This is the best one

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to impose a maximum weight limit for women wearing stiletto heels
as they pose a massive threat to other members of the public on dance floors and in crowded bars nationwide

LMAO

Haha! Class!!!!!!!

The last is brilliant!

ags