wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 16:44:15 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 15:50:21 +0000
Clive wrote:
Where death is the end result there is always reasonable doubt.
There are cases where a weak person will break down under
questioning and admit to guilt wrongfully. There are cases where
only in the light of

Short of torturing someone no one is going to admit to murder.

Oh dear, you're wrong yet again:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=&q=u...=navcl ient-f
&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&ie=UTF-8#sclient=psy&hl=en&rlz=1B3GGGL_en___GB231&q=%2B
k+-not+%2Bmurder+guilty+pleas&aq=f&aqi=&aql=f&oq=&pbx =1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=18e4c0c
530c3619

Oh FFS , did I need to write it out in full so the class dunces can
understand?

No one is going to admit to murder or rape if they didn't do it
(apart from a few head cases but who gives a **** about them anyway)
- given that he was talking about weak people breaking down under
questioning I'd have thought
the meaning was obvious.

Of course some people admit guilt if they've done it, theres dambing
evidence in front of them and they can get a lighter sentence if they
please guilty.

But as I thought I'd make clear even to you, under your proposals,
absolutely no-one, however guilty, would ever, ever plead guilty, so the
state would have to prove every case beyond reasonable doubt. Just
because someone did it, doesn't mean it's easy to prove. And juries
would be more reluctant to convict (not every juror thinks like you).

Result: more murderers would be found not guilty and released
immediately, rather than in, say, 15 years. Another well thought-out
Boltar plan.