View Single Post
Old 28-04-2008, 14:19   #56
Xaccers
Inactive
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Milling around Milton Keynes
Age: 48
Posts: 12,969
Xaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny stars
Xaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny starsXaccers has a pair of shiny stars
Re: "Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Derek S View Post
Unless the law in England is completely different from that in Scotland groups of people acting together for a common illegal goal are charged together. As it's sometimes put
"You fly with the crows, you get shot with the crows"

It's not what I think, it's what I know happens.
All the cases I've dealt with involving groups of people have had them charged individually, even when in the dock together.
When the foreman of the jury is asked for the verdicts, it is not against the group, but against each member of the group.
It's what's going on with the suspected terrorist groups right now, hence how some of them have been found guilty of lesser charges.

Quote:
Funnily enough quite a few of the English coppers I know (who DO have intimate knowledge of the evidence) think the CPS are only interested in the highest conviction level, punishment doesn't concern them. If they can get a plea then in 99% of the cases they'll take it.
That's because the police are not legal experts, infact from experience they know less about the law than most members of the public!
The CPS' role is to decide if there is a case to answer for, and if a conviction is likely and in the best interests of the nation, for instance, a 6 month super expensive court case to get a conviction over something trivial would be a waste of public funds. Similarly if it's likely to be nigh impossible to get a conviction for a serious crime, yet more likely to get one for a slightly lesser crime, then it makes sense to at least get a conviction than let someone get away with it, never to be charged again.

Quote:
Whilst I don't know the exact legal definition of Murder in England and Wales I'd assume it's pretty similar to the Scottish one. From that and what I recall of the case they could very easily of been competently convicted of murder.
They were tried and found not guilty of murder because it was impossible to say which one actually killed the boy, and that they meant to kill him.
Manslaughter on the other hand doesn't require premeditation or intent to kill.
Xaccers is offline