I'm not sure I agree with you Nigel...

Someone is either innocent or guilty of a crime. If they are, in fact innocent, but are convicted on faulty forensic evidence or some other evidence even by the fairest jury available, that still does not make them actually "guilty" in reality. Only in the eyes of the law.

I used to work as a forensic scientist and once appeared in court to give evidence in a firearms case (no-one was killed or injured fortunately but a guilty verdict would have carried a stiff sentence). Unusually, in that particular case I was giving a forensic opinion for the defence against the police forensic service who had been, in my scientific opinion, unjustifiably "exact" in their conclusions. In reality, the uncertainty involved in the analysis of the forensic evidence in question did not warrant the degree of assurance expressed. In the event, the prosecution withdrew their case following my evidence and, only later, was I told that there was inadmissible evidence that would also have exonerated the accused (he/she in fact was elsewhere at the scence of a more mundane crime!).

The point here is that science is not an absolute, as stated by alanabit. No good scientist would clain absolute surety about anything. There is a certain level of knowledge and understanding at a given time. My degree of knowledge on a very specialist subject in the case I mentioned above was considered to outweigh the "official" opinion. Besides these "normal" differences in opinions between experts, any given scientific discipline evolves and more techniques become available. I wonder, for instance, how many miscarriages of justice (i.e. pro or against the defendant) would have been avoided with the DNA techniques now available?

As yours, just my personal opinion of course...

Regarding the Ian Huntley case, I agree with the life sentences given and, like alanabit and my friend Wilfried and others above, I am absolutely against capital punishment (and always have been so).

Peace,

moo