Greenhill

They are charging him with the murder this morning, I assume they've collected sufficient forensic evidence to prove it was him. http://www.ngnews.ca/News/Local/2012...g-and-murder/1

Clearly a bad judgement call was made in releasing him. If no one is held accountable for this then how do we move forward as a society and prevent similar crimes by released offenders?

jericho

I think AC's point was that there's a process to be followed- ie/ a trial, and until he hasnt been found guilty of anything.

Greenhill

Of course, but they're charging him as they likely believe they have sufficient evidence to prove he committed the crime. Whether the process deems that he did it or didn't do it, surely that's just a matter of informed opinion which might serve only as a distraction from the reality that the safety of our community has probably, likely been put in jeopardy by a very bad decision on behalf of the parole board (and/or those who advise them).

They originally took Falconer back into custody on parole violation charges (a few weeks after the murder). "When Falconer was arrested he was found with a knife, three marijuana cigarettes and a magazine with two bullets."

Is there not also something wrong with that picture, that a convicted murderer, on parole, is able to procure such items and freely walk around with them in his possession?

Sorry for the rant... I'm extremely angry about all right now (as is probably very obvious) ... trying to calm down.

Almost Canadian

Correct

I recall O.J. Simpson being charged and tried, ditto for Mr. Jackson, etc. One will never know if they did it and, if convicted, one is never certain the decision will be upheld on appeal.

Almost Canadian

Are you advocating for no parole for any offenders, ever? If not, how does one decide if they are safe to be released? Expert evidence, I would assume. Are you aware that the expert evidence was incorrect? Do you have any facts to support this? Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

jericho

You'll have seen in the news recently a University study that found a bloke in the US was wrongfully executed for a murder he didnt commit... despite all the evidence that showed, without "any reasonable doubt" he did it.

I'm inclined to agree with you that the police appear to have found her killer, but lets see the trial first... that's what they're for.

Greenhill

And if expert evidence was incorrect, would we have a realistic chance of being told?

If a mistake has been made surely, either someone would take responsibility and resign OR we will never find out the truth (and nothing will change).

One of the articles mentioned that his previous request for parole had been denied because, at some recent point, Falconer has "sat on a member of staff".

I recall you mentioning that you worked in the prison service yourself. Surely, you must have experience that makes you feel that we should adapt, perhaps using the hindsight, rather than letting the blame spiral out into the system until the matters are long forgotten?

jericho

FYI, this is on the news right now:
http://news.uk.msn.com/articles.aspx...ntid=250017358

mikelincs

This, and the US case only serves to prove to me that I could NEVER find a person guilty in any case where the death sentence was involved, there have been just too many cases like these, in the UK one he is now free, in the US one he is still dead.

Almost Canadian

I also accept that very little in life come with a 100% guarantee. You will no doubt be aware from previous posts of mine that I have no issue with the death penalty in certain cases and that the vast majority of those incarcerated in England and Wales deserve little sympathy.

However, I have also attended criminal trials where the media's reporting of what occured bore little resemblence to what I saw and heard during the process that was being reported. As a result of this, trial by media is never appropriate. That is also the reason why I don't comment upon cases unless I have heard all of the evidence.

I am not defending anyone here and, of course, those that killed Amber should be brought to trial.

Almost Canadian

What about the case going on in Norway involving Mr. Breivik at the moment?

He has admitted he did it, and has stated he is not insane. If this is correct, there is little doubt of his criminal responsibility and, if the death sentence was an option, why would it be wrong to convict him?

BristolUK

I don't remember hearing about any campaign going on for that case. They're usually ones that go further back. That's a bit disturbing to see such a recent one.

mikelincs

He has admitted it, so no-one is involved in trying to decide his guilt or innocence, there is no jury deciding on his guilt or innocence.

Almost Canadian

Why is it "disturbing"? Juries, like individuals, can get it wrong. I know little about this case but the suggestion that every person convicted is guilty, just like the suggestion that every person acquitted is innocent, is nonsense.

Also note that, it would appear, further evidence was adduced during the appeal.

Why was he was released on bail?

Almost Canadian

If juries are not appropriate arbiters if a death sentence is on the line, what makes them appropriate if incarceration is the sentence available?