Scottish Law Online Discussion Forum
Other Topics >> Current Affairs >> Mitchell Case

Message started by Raymond on Apr 22nd, 2005 at 4:03pm

Title: Mitchell Case
Post by Raymond on Apr 22nd, 2005 at 4:03pm
To all,
Just logged on to this website hoping to see if any discussion had begun in the legal community about the Luke Mitchell case.

Would be very interested to know how the Scottish legal community felt about the case, verdict and sentencing.

I feel the journalism around the case was poor to say the least and a few major questions still need to be addressed.

Namely, the speculation on motive was sketchy, so if the boy did commit the crime is anybody interested in asking why?
The fact that the press don't seem to care is slightly worrying.

If justice is supposed to serve the interests of society - Is a sentence of twenty years for a crime commited at the age of 14 really going to help the community come to terms with what happened? In ten years time what are going to be the reprecussions of this in Dalkeith?

The final, and perhaps most important question is whether the jury were able to act without prejudice in light of the publicity and media condemnation of the acccused?

Without attending the trial itself, it is hard to make subjective judgement on whether justice was upheld but I would be interesed to know what the personal feelings were inside the legal community.

Title: Re: Mitchell Case
Post by johnmcg on Apr 23rd, 2005 at 12:28am
I would hope that the jury decided upon the evidence and have indeed sworn to do so. Not the media portrayal.

Re the 'why' question.  The justice system is not so concerned with ‘why’, but as to who is guilty or indeed not. The truth ought to be the ultimate aim of all judicial systems irrespective of the consequences. Veritas.

Sociologists, criminologists, psychologists, social workers and metalica fans et al can debate the ‘why’.  Though for every opinion generator there will be a different ‘why’.

Title: Re: Mitchell Case w
Post by bobbiedog on Dec 13th, 2005 at 2:18am
I am of the opinion that the prosecution and conviction of Luke Mitchell was fundamentally flawed, in well nigh every one of its elements and dimensions.

Luke Mitchell was not tried judicially, in my opinion: but was, rather, profiled; and assessed through prejudice.
What was led as judicial process, crucially by Alan Turnbull QC, crossing lines; in a determination to secure conviction.

The question as to why the media has not subjected this case to closer and more searching scrutiny, is indeed a real one: the weaknesses in investigation, prosecution and conviction; being so gross and apparent.

The question of why cannot be dismissed: when the prosecution came to depend so much on negative profiling; in an absence of forensic and circumstantial evidence.
The prosecution suggested a type of person, filling out that suggestion with narrative of bottles or urine, and tastes in music and philosophy. The prosecution used claims as to why: for example with the notion that Luke killed Jodi, as details of his two-timing emerged. The judge, in saying that he did not know why, made the why question central.

Scottish Law Online Discussion Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5 AE!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2010. All Rights Reserved.