Like it or not—and many of us don’t—but David Bain was found not guilty of murder in his long-delayed retrial.
Not guilty. Not innocent, no, because courts can’t determine that, but not guilty. That was the jury’s verdict: not guilty of murder.
And imperfect as it is, the court system we have is still the best we have to determine guilt in criminal cases—and the jury on the case heard far more of the evidence than we did, who had to rely on a headline-hunting media for our soundbites.
So given his years in prison, given the verdict, given what seems to be the verdict of an independent judge brought over from Canada to assess the evidence on a civil standard of proof—which seems to be that David Bain is “innocent on the balance of probabilities” and therefore deserves compensation from the justice system for the system having failed him—why then shouldn’t he get it?
That’s what justice would be, wouldn’t it?
7 comments:
Do you consider that the finding that he might have been innocent on the balance of probabilities to be particularly relevant.
Bain spent 13(?) years in prison, when it turn out he shouldn't have been there. Even if it is proved that he was guilty on the balance of probabilities, Bain still spent 13 years in prison when he shouldn't have.
Shouldn't that alone be enough for compensation?
I believe it's called "not guilty" rather than innocent.
That said, the very point I was making was based on the courts having said he shouldn't have been there.
I didn't think I was being obtuse.
Actually, Justice Binnie was asked to determine whether David Bain was "innocent" on the balance of probabilities, and reportedly has determined that he was.
Judith Collins seems to be a person who will not be moved from her position, no matter what the evidence. I am sure she her views on the matter were formed while she was Minister of Police during the Bain retrial.
The problem with his retrial was the jury was part of the Bain fan club.
And if he is entitled to compensation the people involved need to be tracked down and sued. The taxpayer owes him nothing.
it's called "not guilty" rather than innocent.
I am aware of that. I was using your words to ask a different question.
Your statement was:
So given his years in prison, given the verdict, given what seems to be the verdict of an independent judge brought over from Canada to assess the evidence on a civil standard of proof—which seems to be that David Bain is “innocent on the balance of probabilities” and therefore deserves compensation from the justice system for the system having failed him—why then shouldn’t he get it? That’s what justice would be, wouldn’t it?
I am merely suggesting that "given his years in prison, given the verdict" he should get compensation irrespective of whether "given what seems to be the verdict of an independent judge brought over from Canada to assess the evidence on a civil standard of proof—which seems to be that David Bain is “innocent on the balance of probabilities”" is true.
If someone spends 13 years in prison when the Government hasn't lawfully proven them guilty of anything, shouldn't that be enough for compensation?
I'm far more interested in whether he actually did kill his family or not. The splutterings of some proven activist Canuck Judge, who has no background in criminal law and has more than once been in the minority in criminal cases determining guilt, should have no bearing.
There is clearly issues with the report, and I am glad that they are reviewing it. Not least because it's obvious that David Bain did it and shouldn't be given a penny.
It is far more important that justice is done than "due process" is preserved.
The Bain family was weird. I mean in a physical sense. Since they lived on Schrodinger's Street, each member of the family seemed to be disoriented whenever they did something on their own. It was claimed by the defense the was the killer where he killed himself and didn't kill himself at the same time, because the prosecutor put forward that argument in court, based on the position of the gun relative to Robyn's dead body, which made it impossible for Robyn to have done so.
David Bain's legal team argued that David couldn't have done it since he was doing his paper run at the alleged time of the killing, however the prosecutor argued that the it must have been David, since the time of the message left on the computer put David at the scene of the crime. So, it seemed that David was kind of at the scene of the crime and doing his paper run simultaneously during the time of the killing spree.
Its even more weird to think that perhaps Robyn may have committed a Quantum Suicide.
Post a Comment