Suspected burglar stabbed to death by homeowner

[Glaucus]

don't you think the police would would have enough brains to work this one out?

How do you differentiate between inviting someone in and a burglar. You have one persons word and that's it.
Not even Texas allows you to just kill an intruder.

Such catch all laws wouldn't be a good thing.
Not saying it would happen often, but laws need to be well written and such a blanket rule, is not.

 

[Glaucus]

Trouble is a Judge can still direct a jury on what choice of sentence to give, manslaughter or murder they might not be given an option of innocent.

Are you sure and have you got any links.

Rights one some reading half true. If they broke the law the judge can direct the jury to find guilty. However it is just a direction and the jury can still find not guilty. As demonstrated in the Clive Pontin case. Where he broke the secrecy act and judge directed the jury. However jury still returned a not guilty verdict as they thought it was in the publics best interest.

 

[scorza]

What's a better system?

Do you want to be judged by a judge, who has had been exposure to criminals and is likely to be biased. Or do you want to be-judged on what's reasonable by 12 normal people. That's if it even goes to court.

Its like democracy, it's the lesser of two evils.

A better system would be one where the police actually do their job and investigate whether a crime has taken place without presuming that a householder is guilty of something.

Find me 12 normal people please. We'll start with Valentino from his thread on jury duty:

Because the fact the case needs a jury means there isn't solid proof any crime has been committed so is innocent imo. It's better to let 10 guilty men free, than imprison one innocent man.

 

[LupoLover]

How do you differentiate between inviting someone in and a burglar. You have one persons word and that's it.
Not even Texas allows you to just kill an intruder.

Such catch all laws wouldn't be a good thing.
Not saying it would happen often, but laws need to be well written and such a blanket rule, is not.

Seeing as I have 3 USA citizens in my house at min I shall answer this one!

You can kill a person threatening life with any means however you cant defend your property with murder.

 

[Vonhelmet]

In our wonderful legal system, that's a question that neither the police or the CPS or a judge or a politician are qualified to answer. So instead we get twelve random people off the streets and let them decide.

Jury... of... your... peers.

They are the people most qualified to determine what is reasonable.

 

[ubersonic]

Trouble is a Judge can still direct a jury on what choice of sentence to give, manslaughter or murder they might not be given an option of innocent.

Are you sure and have you got any links.

Im almost certain I remember hearing about a case like this, however I remember the story being about the defendants sentence being quashed because he had not received a fair trial because the jury were not given the option to find him innocent... (they said they would have given the choice)

 

[scorza]

Jury... of... your... peers.

They are the people most qualified to determine what is reasonable.

What makes them qualified to make that judgement? Is there an exam they have to sit?

 

[Vonhelmet]

What makes them qualified to make that judgement? Is there an exam they have to sit?

Only that they are reasonable people, or at least a dozen of them should average out to being fairly reasonable.

 

[Abraham]

Surely if someone admitted to manslaughter but the CPS pushed for murder the jurys decision would be between murder and manslaughter, not guilty of murder would implicitly be manslaughter as they've admitted or have already had it proven that they committed the act.

 

[scorza]

Only that they are reasonable people, or at least a dozen of them should average out to being fairly reasonable.

So we're back to square one - under the current legal framework in England and Wales, a householder who kills an intruder will always be arrested, charged, possibly remanded in custody for months, and then maybe get a fairly reasonable jury who will find them not guilty. It doesn't matter if the police think reasonable force was used, they aren't qualified to make that judgement. It doesn't matter if the CPS think reasonable force was used, they aren't qualified to make that judgement either. But a dozen random people collectively are. Brilliant. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that this is wrong?

 

[Glaucus]

A better system would be one where the police actually do their job and investigate whether a crime has taken place without presuming that a householder is guilty of something.

Find me 12 normal people please. We'll start with Valentino from his thread on jury duty:

You still paddling that line. Police do not assume guilt. Police investigate, they then submit evidence to cps which then decide if there's enough evidence to prosecute, a jury or on the odd occasion a judge decides guilt.
Why do you keep banging this rediculuse line of guilt.

 

[Glaucus]

So we're back to square one - under the current legal framework in England and Wales, a householder who kills an intruder will always be arrested, charged, possibly remanded in custody for months, and then maybe get a fairly reasonable jury who will find them not guilty. It doesn't matter if the police think reasonable force was used, they aren't qualified to make that judgement. It doesn't matter if the CPS think reasonable force was used, they aren't qualified to make that judgement either. But a dozen random people collectively are. Brilliant. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that this is wrong?

Again please suggest alternative.

 

[scorza]

Again please suggest alternative.

The alternative, which I've already alluded to, is that somewhere between the incident happening and the trial, a law enforcement professional at a suitable level makes a judgement that actually the level of force used was not unreasonable and that it does not serve the public interest by putting the householder, who through no fault of his or her own found themselves in these circumstances, through months of hell wondering if they're going to get sent to prison for life.

There are numerous opportunities for this to happen - the police can do it by not arresting the householder. The CPS can do it by not charging the householder or by later dropping the charges before it gets to trial. A judge can do it at any point during the trial.

 

[Abraham]

The alternative, which I've already alluded to, is that somewhere between the incident happening and the trial, a law enforcement professional at a suitable level makes a judgement that actually the level of force used was not unreasonable and that it does not serve the public interest by putting the householder, who through no fault of his or her own found themselves in these circumstances, through months of hell wondering if they're going to get sent to prison for life.

There are numerous opportunities for this to happen - the police can do it by not arresting the householder. The CPS can do it by not charging the householder or by later dropping the charges before it gets to trial. A judge can do it at any point during the trial.

The police are not in a position to make that decision at the point of arrest however can release him without charge (as has been done with the guys son and his girlfriend)
All your other options can and do currently happen.
The problem as you see it is a fictional one.

 

[scorza]

The police are not in a position to make that decision at the point of arrest however can release him without charge (as has been done with the guys son and his girlfriend)
All your other options can and do currently happen.
The problem as you see it is a fictional one.

In these cases the police claim that they have to arrest everyone, even before it has been established that a crime has been committed.

 

[Nikias]

scorza, seriously, go and do some research into our legal system and stop making wild assertions. Have you spent much time in a courtroom? The police and CPS have influence because they decide whether there is enough evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute, politicians write the law, e.g., in the 2008 Act I linked you to, and judges have influence in deciding questions of law and the fairness of the trial. The jury's role is limited to deciding specific questions of fact. Separation like that is good for justice.

Can someone clarify some points regarding this please?

I presume Peter Flanagan didn't wake up and think I'm going to murder someone today. He was confronted by masked men in his home and used force and a weapon to make them flee. This arguably got out of hand and John Bennell was stabbed? Surely this is manslaughter at worst?

Why was it attempted murder? If it was murder, surely it was murder as he died as a result of the wounds inflicted on him by Peter Flanagan?

This is because motive is irrelevant as a matter of law (though not evidence) as to liability for a crime. Murder and manslaughter have the same actus reus (guilty act), namely the unlawful killing of a human being under the Queen's Peace. The mens rea (guilty mind) required is intent to kill or cause GBH (serious harm).

When deliberately stabbing someone, you are usually intending to cause them serious harm. It is the mens rea you have at the time of completing the actus reus that matters, not any planning beforehand. If you successfully raise a defence, like self-defence, then that renders the killing lawful.

 

[Abraham]

In these cases the police claim that they have to arrest everyone, even before it has been established that a crime has been committed.

What are you talking about? You gave *alternative* ways it could work, and I said that they currently do take place.

 

[scorza]

scorza, seriously, go and do some research into our legal system and stop making wild assertions. Have you spent much time in a courtroom?

No. Have you?

The police and CPS have influence because they decide whether there is enough evidence and it is in the public interest to prosecute

So why can't the police and CPS decide that there isn't evidence that a crime has been committed and it isn't in the public interest to prosecute?

 

[scorza]

What are you talking about? You gave *alternative* ways it could work, and I said that they currently do take place.

Have you been read any posts in this thread from AcidHell, Tefal or vonhelmet?

 

[Vonhelmet]

So we're back to square one - under the current legal framework in England and Wales, a householder who kills an intruder will always be arrested, charged, possibly remanded in custody for months, and then maybe get a fairly reasonable jury who will find them not guilty. It doesn't matter if the police think reasonable force was used, they aren't qualified to make that judgement. It doesn't matter if the CPS think reasonable force was used, they aren't qualified to make that judgement either. But a dozen random people collectively are. Brilliant. Surely I can't be the only one who thinks that this is wrong?

The police can't decide what is reasonable force. A single policeman can't speculate as to how a person felt, how much stress they were under, how intimidating the attacker was. This is a job for the jury.

Besides... You want to take the decision out of the hands of 12 normal people and put it in the hands of 1 considerably more corruptible and potentially biased person? That sort of seems like a step backwards...