|
I have just read in today's newspapers that two youths, aged 18 & 20, both of whom admitted being in a car which crashed and killed a 73 year old pedestrian, cannot be prosecuted as there is no evidence as to which one of them was driving at the time. They both admit being in the car and they both deny driving. On that basis how can police proceed against two people who were in a car exceeding the speed limit, who either can't or won't 'remember' who was driving? Speeding and the law is all over you, and why not? Kill someone and it is all 'too difficult"! Please can someone explain? Pugugly perhaps?
|
|
The same situation occurred some years ago when a child was killed by it's parents, mainly through long term abuse. Both accused the other of the crime and the police were unable to bring a case in the abscence of other evidence. It does seem strange that the law does not allow both to be proscecuted under a law of common purpose as both were equally to blame. There are glaring loopholes in the law that literally allow people to get away with murder on no more than a technicality.
|
That 'glaring technicality' is that there is no identify the criminal. If there is no evidence to say it's one or the other, how on earth can there be a conviction?
Don't forget, one of them is innocent too. Or is it alright to convict the innocent as well?
|
|
Surprised there was no forensic evidence to identify who sat where. The result is both will be regarded locally as equally responsible.
|
RF. I would not want any innocent person convicted. The point I was trying make, and obviously not well, was that the police can force a motorist to decalre who was driving a car at the time of an alleged or actual offence (speeding) so what is different here when a very serious offence indeed has taken place and someone is dead?
AH. In my view both ARE equally responsible unless one of them says that he was driving. They may not be guilty in law but THEY know who was driving and if thay don't want to reveal who it was then it is fair that society regards them both as guilty. It is within their power to resolve the issue and they choose not to, on the information that I have available.
|
|
|
|
|
Surely they could at least do them both for complicity (aiding & abetting?), and given the circumstances the sentence could be pitched at the highest end of the scale. They can't just get off scott free, surely?
|
Smokie
It looks as, at present, they can. This is no justice at all. Armitage Shanks is right - there is effectively a conspiracy between the two to frustrate the law. This being the case, it should be possible to try & convict both of the offence. Rough justice to be sure but effective and better than no justice at all. Following this in all likelihood one of them will crack and the truth would out; in this case the "innocent" party could have the charge reduced to some sort of complicity but there should be no consideration of compensation whatsoever.
|
It used to be in my early days, run the charge and let the Court decide.
We apparently have progressed since then and are more civilised so that the letter of the law has to be followed as opposed to the spirit.
Make no mistake this will have been chewed over from every angle by Lawyers of the CPS but the evidence and Court Procedure is not there to stand up to a conviction. Scroat wins.
Funny for Criminal Law everything has to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Now in Civil Proceeding the balance of probability only has to be proved. Small wonder the public are moving to the later course of action.
DVD.
DVD.
|
|
Agree the next best approach would be the civil courts. Should be easy to establish who normally drives vehicle. If it was a relative of mine who died, I doubt I would be in a state to think of court action at the moment. There is nothing the court can do to restore a life or cause remorse in some people.
|
Don't we just bend over for the good old 'crims' here in the UK nowadays?
There was a famous case back in the 60's (Derek Bentley) I think who told his accomplice to let the copper chasing them to 'have it.' So, the other guy shot the copper but Bentley was hanged for his part of the crime.
While not condoning capital punishment in such circumstances, although the tragic events today in Soham make me think child murders should be executed, our laws have been changed to such a degree that crims are now the protected species.
And don't give me that c*** about freedoms and rights etc, if you chose a life of crime, you leave your rights and freedoms locked away in a cupboard somewhere.
The two drivers should be tried as accomplices to death by dangerous driving and any lilly livered lawyer or libereral who campaigns on their behalf should only be able to use the due process of law instead of all the devious loopsholes they can find to prevent a prosecution and then, a lesser sentence.
Crims have far too much protection from the law and its time something was done about it.
|
Nicely put Watcher.
I know it isn't appropriate to say too much about the Soham business at this time, but having watched it unfold on Sky throughout the day it seems cruel (to the parents and the community) that the police have not yet been able to provide positive IDs on the bodies by now (9 pm) purely because they have to be SO SO careful about contaminating evidence beause with the slightest whiff of contamination some sleazy defence lawyer will do his best to get his client off.
(I suppose that there might have been a preliminary ID and the parents hopefully have been given an indication)
|
|
|
The question is:
Does the man on the Clapham omnibus think that justice has been done??
|
Does the man on the Clapham omnibus think that justice has been done??
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
