"Tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime"

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Although in some cases I'm aware of there was an abundance of evidence against the accused (excellent CCTV, multiple eyewitnesses, strong DNA, the accused still wearing the bloodstained clothing a few days later...) but culpable homicide pleas have been accepted instead of murder as 'they didn't mean to kill them'

Now I'm not a doctor but when the Scottish definition of murder includes the phrase
'a willful act so reckless as to show utter disregard for the consequences' I'd say stabbing someone in the neck, jumping up and down on their head or pushing them into a flooded quarry would count as murder.

You're not a QC either, or in posession of all the facts, so to say that a conviction of murder is likely when there wasn't just one attacker is a bit rich don't you think?

[Derek]

The facts were: (in the case I'm thinking of)

Two people attacked one other, there was bad blood between them and anecdotal evidence exists to suggest they went out looking for the victim. During the attack he was beaten to the ground and then both attackers repeatedly jumped up and down on his head.

In that case I'd say both should have been found guilty of murder.
Both pled guilty to culpable homicide (equivalent to manslaughter in Scots law) and got sentences of about 9 years each, with the usual reductions for time on remand and automatic 1/2 way release. The pleas were accepted as they were arguing they didn't mean to kill the victim, the jumping on the head just got out of hand...

I suppose given Scotland has a 'Not Proven' verdict it may be slightly different but in my book both should be on a life sentence right now.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

The facts were: (in the case I'm thinking of)

Two people attacked one other, there was bad blood between them and anecdotal evidence exists to suggest they went out looking for the victim. During the attack he was beaten to the ground and then both attackers repeatedly jumped up and down on his head.

In that case I'd say both should have been found guilty of murder.
Both pled guilty to culpable homicide (equivalent to manslaughter in Scots law) and got sentences of about 9 years each, with the usual reductions for time on remand and automatic 1/2 way release. The pleas were accepted as they were arguing they didn't mean to kill the victim, the jumping on the head just got out of hand...

I suppose given Scotland has a 'Not Proven' verdict it may be slightly different but in my book both should be on a life sentence right now.

Which one dealt the killing blow?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which one dealt the killing blow?

They were acting together, it doesn't matter who dealt the killing blow, one could have caused an injury which would have proved fatal later on.
Or are you suggesting if 5 people shoot a person and kill him only one can be charged with murder?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

They were acting together, it doesn't matter who dealt the killing blow, one could have caused an injury which would have proved fatal later on.
Or are you suggesting if 5 people shoot a person and kill him only one can be charged with murder?

We don't charge groups, we charge individuals. That's why muder can be difficult to get a conviction for when a group was involved.
Using your example, the killing shot would have to be proven.
For instance, 4 shoot someone in the bum, 1 shoots them in the head.
Should the 4 that aimed for the bum be convicted of murder when their shots weren't fatal?

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Using your example, the killing shot would have to be proven.
For instance, 4 shoot someone in the bum, 1 shoots them in the head.
Should the 4 that aimed for the bum be convicted of murder when their shots weren't fatal?

So if all 5 fired off a number of shots, any of which could have been fatal and it's impossible to determine which one was the actual killing shot none of them should be charged with murder?
If thats what you think you should apply for a job with the CPS.

Thats why groups of people are charged together with the same crime. They are acting together for a common illegal purpose.

In armed robberies do you think the only person charged should be the one who takes physical possesion of the money?

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Derek S

you should apply for a job with the CPS.

Yes, that renowned public spirited body the Criminal Protection Service.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

So if all 5 fired off a number of shots, any of which could have been fatal and it's impossible to determine which one was the actual killing shot none of them should be charged with murder?
If thats what you think you should apply for a job with the CPS.

Thats why groups of people are charged together with the same crime. They are acting together for a common illegal purpose.

In armed robberies do you think the only person charged should be the one who takes physical possesion of the money?

Only if the charge is taking physical possesion of the money.
The accomplices are normally charged with other crimes, such as aiding, or conspiracy etc.
As I said, despite what you think, we do not try groups as a unit, we try individuals for the crimes they themselves committed, and the CPS weighs up the evidence (which lets face it, they have and you do not), and decides what way forward would get the best result (ie highest punishment with highest chance of conviction).
You may recall those gurkhas I mentioned in a previous thread, who chased a teenage boy and kicked him to death.
None of them were convicted of murder because it could not be proven which one killed the boy.
Now if they'd been charged with manslaughter, ie their actions resulted in someone's death without actually having to prove they were the killer, then they'd be in prison.

[Osem]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...=1770&ito=1490

More ineptitude leads to death of an innocent victim.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Only if the charge is taking physical possesion of the money.
The accomplices are normally charged with other crimes, such as aiding, or conspiracy etc.

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

CPS weighs up the evidence (which lets face it, they have and you do not), and decides what way forward would get the best result (ie highest punishment with highest chance of conviction)

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.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You may recall those gurkhas I mentioned in a previous thread, who chased a teenage boy and kicked him to death.
None of them were convicted of murder because it could not be proven which one killed the boy.

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.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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.

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.

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.

[Osem]

Here's some interesting reading which explains some of the issues and problems with the current law.

http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/cp177_web.pdf
http://www.lawcom.gov.uk/docs/lc304.pdf

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

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.

It just highlight how slow and inefficient the system is, I have been keeping a close look on the local crown court since the beginning of this year. (when someone here provided the link)

Often I have been seeing the same name for weeks, out of interest I have searched google and found the person is in for a case where the evidence is overwhelming but it still takes at least a dozen appearances to convict.

Surely the aim should be to make the system more efficient and not to let people get away with offences because of the cost. I can see that a murder case will take a long time, but someone involved in serious animal cruelty etc should be in and dealt with quickly.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Escapee

It just highlight how slow and inefficient the system is, I have been keeping a close look on the local crown court since the beginning of this year. (when someone here provided the link)

Often I have been seeing the same name for weeks, out of interest I have searched google and found the person is in for a case where the evidence is overwhelming but it still takes at least a dozen appearances to convict.

Surely the aim should be to make the system more efficient and not to let people get away with offences because of the cost. I can see that a murder case will take a long time, but someone involved in serious animal cruelty etc should be in and dealt with quickly.

It depends on the crime.
For instance, someone asking the police to provide evidence that they actually followed the law properly when sending a NIP to an alleged speeding motorist should result in a court appearance, however in the grand scheme of things, if that motorist has no other convictions (ie to all intents and purposes this was a one off and not much over the speed limit), it might as well be dropped, especially as in most cases the police do not follow the law when sending out NIPs...

Mistakes are made, especially with paperwork somehow getting misplaced (hmm, seen that happen before with some scrotes where I used to live) with the help of the local police if they think there's something in it for them (ie "I'll let you get away with this crime if you tell me what that bloke at number 10 is up to")

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

All the cases I've dealt with involving groups of people have had them charged individually, even when in the dock together.

Charged separately but with the same crime. By your reckoning no-one should be convicted of murder if they act in a group as you can only kill someone once the last time I checked.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/7370637.stm

Originally Posted by BBC

Two teenage boys have been jailed for life for the murder of a woman who was killed for dressing as a Goth.

Both of them convicted of murder but no-one can be sure who actually hit the killing blow.