Letter: Justice in the dock: the fallibility of juries, self-defence, and trial by media
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Joseph Elliott of Streatham, London, walked free after admitting killing Robert Osborne simply because the jury was not instructed to do what was 'just' but what was 'legal' ('Killer of 'good neighbour' cleared', 14 July). Technically, Mr Elliott could have acted in 'self-defence' as 'legally' defined, but on the basis of the facts as reported in the press, it seems that 'natural justice' must be on Mr Osborne's side.
The law on self-defence is, and has always been, suspect. I fear for the safety now of Mr Osborne's wife and family - as I fear for that of my own family - in a society where killers can roam freely, without let or hindrance, and where a violent criminal cannot be apprehended violently. Can a police killer now claim self-defence because a constable had his truncheon out?
Yours faithfully,
MICHAEL RICHARD
London, W6
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments