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

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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



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

Of course it would be a shame to hang them because as some say 'It may be found at a later date they were innocent'

I have my doubts

Originally Posted by Escapee

Of course it would be a shame to hang them because as some say 'It may be found at a later date they were innocent'

I have my doubts

Ah, the old "kill them all, and let God sort them out" approach.

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by foreverwar

Ah, the old "kill them all, and let God sort them out" approach.

God?

Does not exist for atheists like myself.

We have a section of society who believe hanging or any other form of death penalty is just not on, because even for those where guilt is beyond doubt ma be proved innocent at a later date.

I think it's a different matter when facts such as this case, and the other recent one where a guy was stabbed and killed in cold blood on a bus are presented.

I don't know how people can argue against the death penalty for these sort of offenders when presented with he real cold facts.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

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



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

Different case, different set of evidence. You knew that though, right?
You'd also have noticed that 3 others involved in the attack were just guilty of GBH with intent.

[Derek]

I'm well aware of that.
However you have said in the past you'd need to know which one dealt the killing blow and this case + the other I mentioned shows clearly acting as a group its possible to competently convict multiple people of the same murder.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

I'm well aware of that.
However you have said in the past you'd need to know which one dealt the killing blow and this case + the other I mentioned shows clearly acting as a group its possible to competently convict multiple people of the same murder.

Two people kicking someone with the clear intent to kill them is easier to convict of murder than three people kicking, stabbing and then pushing someone into a quarry, where the victim then drowns.
Which one drowned the victim? None of them. They caused the death through their actions but did not kill their victim directly, hence the manslaughter conviction rather than an attempt to charge them with murder.

Ok which one of you two is the legal expert?

[trevortt]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Two people kicking someone with the clear intent to kill them is easier to convict of murder than three people kicking, stabbing and then pushing someone into a quarry, where the victim then drowns.
Which one drowned the victim? None of them. They caused the death through their actions but did not kill their victim directly, hence the manslaughter conviction rather than an attempt to charge them with murder.

But why not charge them on the fact that if they were not injuring the person(s) the death may not have happened?

Our crime rules are bezerk.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by trevortt

But why not charge them on the fact that if they were not injuring the person(s) the death may not have happened?

Our crime rules are bezerk.

The point is "may"
If someone deliberately sets out to kill another person, such as kicking them to death, then they have committed murder.
If someone pushes another person into a pool of water after injuring them, it can be argued that they didn't intend to kill the person, only scare them or injure them further.

How's about this one.
You find out your wife is having an affair.
Insane with the situation, you get hold of a gun, and use it to force your neighbour to drive you to your wife and her lover.
You rush in and shoot both of them dead.
While you can claim diminished responsibility, your neighbour cannot, despite being held at gunpoint, and so can end up in court on charges of accessory to murder.
Barristers are currently arguing for changes to the murder laws so that this bizarre situation won't arise.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

The point is "may"
If someone deliberately sets out to kill another person, such as kicking them to death, then they have committed murder.
If someone pushes another person into a pool of water after injuring them, it can be argued that they didn't intend to kill the person, only scare them or injure them further.

How's about this one.
You find out your wife is having an affair.
Insane with the situation, you get hold of a gun, and use it to force your neighbour to drive you to your wife and her lover.
You rush in and shoot both of them dead.
While you can claim diminished responsibility, your neighbour cannot, despite being held at gunpoint, and so can end up in court on charges of accessory to murder.
Barristers are currently arguing for changes to the murder laws so that this bizarre situation won't arise.

If I was the driver my defence would be a) I didn;t know I was being driven to a murder and more importantly, b) I was held at gunpoint forced to drive to somewhere I didnt know a murder was to be committed.

I think you would have to have a very dodgy brief to actually go down as an accessory to murder in the above case.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

If I was the driver my defence would be a) I didn;t know I was being driven to a murder and more importantly, b) I was held at gunpoint forced to drive to somewhere I didnt know a murder was to be committed.

I think you would have to have a very dodgy brief to actually go down as an accessory to murder in the above case.

That's the irony, you're highly unlikely to be convicted by a jury, which is why the barristers are calling for a change, so that if your life is under threat, you have the diminished responsibility defence, as you shouldn't be expected to put the life of someone else above your own.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Two people kicking someone with the clear intent to kill them is easier to convict of murder than three people kicking, stabbing and then pushing someone into a quarry, where the victim then drowns.
Which one drowned the victim? None of them. They caused the death through their actions but did not kill their victim directly, hence the manslaughter conviction rather than an attempt to charge them with murder.

Yes stop trying to change the scenario.
I gave the example (post 47 in case you are interested) of a case where two people kicking and stamping on someone were convicted of cupable homicide and not murder.

You then asked (post 48)

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Which one dealt the killing blow?

I was showing that you don't need to be the person who actually delivers the killing blow to be convicted of murder.

[quote-Incognitas]Ok which one of you two is the legal expert?[/quote]

Not me. Although I do have a healthy, professional interest in it.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Derek S

Yes stop trying to change the scenario.
I gave the example (post 47 in case you are interested) of a case where two people kicking and stamping on someone were convicted of cupable homicide and not murder.

You then asked (post 48)



I was showing that you don't need to be the person who actually delivers the killing blow to be convicted of murder.

Yes because in the case you presented there wasn't sufficient evidence to reach a conviction of murder, yet there was on the lesser charge of culpable homicide.
In the case of the deceased goth, there was sufficient evidence to secure at least two convictions of murder, while only GBH with intent for the other 3 involved.
My point as I've said is that it depends on the likelihood of getting a successful conviction, as it is better to get a conviction on a lesser charge than try for the more serious charge and have the defendant go free.
Therefore where the CPS etc are confident of a conviction for a particular charge, they will push for that charge to be answered for.

Not me. Although I do have a healthy, professional interest in it.

I've had several years working with employment law and more recently the VCR act 2006.

[Saaf_laandon_mo]

I have used my VCR competantly for years and years prior to 2006 without reading the Act. Does that make me an expert too?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Saaf_laandon_mo

I have used my VCR competantly for years and years prior to 2006 without reading the Act. Does that make me an expert too?