Hi everyone,
In 1952 Derek Bentley was hanged for murder of a policeman in London in November 1962. Read about the case here. I´d like to know whether you think this was a great miscarriage of justice or a deserved punishment. And can you think of any other cases which rested on the interpretation of a simple phrase?
Elvis Costello was clearly moved by the story and recorded the song Let him Dangle in the late 1970s. This is a live version. Enjoy...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, the sentence is a miscarriage of justice. As we could see in the film last class and justice confirmed many years later, Derek did not deserved that punishment. He didn't even know Craig was carrying a gun, he tried to dissuade him when he realised, and once the policeman was wounded he surrendered and stayed with him, despite the chance of running away.
ReplyDeleteI don't remember a case like this, but many years ago there was another famous case in the United States in which Rubin Carter, a famous boxer, was convicted for a murder he had never commited. This is Bob Dylan's song "Hurricane", that narrates the story of this man.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JH-pFE_ncPU&feature=related
Nice one Sebas! And valid point made about Hurricane Carter. The song is a great tune by the Bob and here's an interesting entry on Wikipedia:
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_(song)
Steve
I agree with Sebastian. These was a huge mistake from justice, specially from the judge that wasn't neutral as it should be. Evidence was, in my view, clearly pointing out that Derek was not part of the murder. He was guilty for the brake in, but not for that. It seams that the judge and the jury wanted to set and example....
ReplyDeleteThe case I remember it's David Gale's. He was a professor and an activist agaens death sentence. He was convicted for a murder that he hadn't commited.
There is a great movie called The Life of David Gale, with Kevin Spacey, Kate Winslet y Laura Linney wich I recommend. Here is the trailer.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gt7Jmjwjk3I
Another one, not as serious as these two, is a case that television has shown last week, in wich a man was condemned for a crime he hadn't commited and spent 8 month in prision for a "mistake".
Hope you like it.
Well, just as Pau and Sebas, I think the judge's decision was made after a misleading interpretation of the facts that occured that night, something completely unprofessional.
ReplyDeleteThere isn't much that I can add that hasn't been said already. In the first place, i don't agree in using death sentence as the solution to nothing, but in this situation it is totally unjustifiable. The only thing poor Derek is guilty of is to be a person without will that followed an insane friend in one crazy plan. It is clear he was up to no harm and that he isn't the responsable of that murder.
Again, I totally disagree with the sentence if the jury. I couldn`t see the hole movie but as far as I can notices and reading a little bit about this case, the situation wasn`t analized correctly by the jury.
ReplyDeleteIt was clearly that Derek had some problems, psicological for example, he couldn`t express himself and I believe he didn`t even receive enought help because in his situation, he could have avoid being killed. His lawer should have fight harder because he didn`t committed any crime.
It is difficult to think in any similar case. However, it`s very easy to conclude that justice is a global issue: it`s not only in Argentina that we can see some failures, it wasn`t only in the past; it is something we should be concerned about it and ensure that.
I completely agree with Sebastian. Sometimes, justice doesn´t pay atention in some important aspects, that can completely change a sentence. However, Derek is guilty for trying to steal the shop, no matter it's clear he did it cause he was following his friend, so he must have a sentence which must be clearly lower than death.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all have been mentioned before. I think the big mistake was the ignorance of Greg´s dissabilities dispite the fact that the policeman who used to write Greg´s letters, knew it!. Anyway, nowdays there are many cases about inocent people in prison or killed by mistake such as a Brazilian man murdered by a police in Stockwell tube station in London some years ago.
ReplyDeleteDenial of justice
ReplyDeleteAs we could clearly notice in class while watching the film, the judge improperly influenced the opinion of the jury, which indeed must have been enough to nullify the whole process and ask for another one according to the law.
Under no circumstances must a judge jump to conclusions for or against any of the parts involved in the process. His part in a trial is to loyally follow the process according to its rules and let the prosecutors and defendants ensue their constitutional rights of their clients (of supporting their positions) and, at the end, before delivering the final decision to the jury, making a brief unbiased and balanced summary of the facts and arguments presented on both sides without introducing, directly or indirectly, any opinion of his own, which is not at all necessary in any fair democratic country.
The purity of a legal process, more over when it might lead a person to prison or death is crucial. Not just for the person involved in a crime, which is a mere circumstance – there will be others like you and me – perhaps someone like those policemen who according to the information on the blog (link to the BBC) lied under oath – claiming, maybe, the murder had to be punished at any cost, even if it meant denying that person fair trial. a
Although admittedly Derek Bentley was guilty of the break-in, in no way was he guilty of manslaughter. Not only was the judge biased against the defendant but he also misdirected the jury and concealed facts of the utmost importance to take into account such as: that Craig was clearly the ringleader of two; that Bentley was claimed to have learning difficulties and a mental age of 11 and was also an epileptic who was unable to read and write (as we can see his farewell letter to his family was written by a pious guard); the testimonies of the police officer were presented as if he were a notary affidavit (which turned out to be far from true), irresponsibly – at least – giving him a personal opinion which did not support any fair or consistent evidence that Craig carried a gun with the clear intention of shooting a policemen if they would be caught red handed, and finally attributing the phrase let him have it to Bentley with the connotation of killing him.
It is all a question of semiotics. In addition to that Bentley was technically under arrest from the very first moment of the action and not only did he not encourage his partner but indeed tried to dissuade him, and certainly did not try to escape when we could have been done. Evidently beyond any scientific evidence, his facial expression and body language was quite evident in supporting Bentley´s innocence as regards manslaughter.
The brutal treatment of the prosecutor and the judge against a young citizen of this condition, claimed by the law innocent before a verdict declaring him guilty is something terrible that should not happen.
The transgression of the essential right of anyone to have a fair trial is an uncivilized act, both for the criminal and for the one for which people in the court are judging. The strict fulfilment of the law is the only thing that guarantees individual freedom in society, unless society, namely a fair trial, dictates otherwise.
The verdict was not wrong because the jury was impeded from having access to the elements to pronounce a verdict according to the law.
It was not miscarriage of justice. It was evidently a denial of justice.
Marcelo