|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 14:06:29 GMT
I should clarify, I do not actually intend to kill Oldie.
|
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 8, 2022 14:07:45 GMT
Yes I believe it correct to prosecute a crime after it has been committed rather than before. Planning a terror attack is a crime. So planning terrorism is prosecutable. Intent is not always a crime, only in certain circumstances and normally when someone has taken steps towards an action. So what your saying is planning to commit a crime is only an offence in certain circumstances...right ....got it š So tell me under what circumstances is intent to commit a crime not a crime ? This'll be interesting Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. |
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 14:15:54 GMT
So what your saying is planning to commit a crime is only an offence in certain circumstances...right ....got it š So tell me under what circumstances is intent to commit a crime not a crime ? This'll be interesting Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. Yes. Generally speaking I am not particularly comfortable with intent being a crime but recognise it as a necessary evil in certain circumstances. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 8, 2022 14:18:11 GMT
So what your saying is planning to commit a crime is only an offence in certain circumstances...right ....got it š So tell me under what circumstances is intent to commit a crime not a crime ? This'll be interesting Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I will try and recall my law degree,Mens Rea(intent) is particularly relevant in cases of murder ,you have to have an Intent to kill prior to executing your plan to be guilty of murder otherwise it's manslaughter. |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Sept 8, 2022 14:22:17 GMT
So what your saying is planning to commit a crime is only an offence in certain circumstances...right ....got it š So tell me under what circumstances is intent to commit a crime not a crime ? This'll be interesting Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I disagree with that (sorry). If a lone bomber (not terrorism related) planned to bomb a london landmark but didn't achieve what he set out to do because he was arrested before hand you honestly believe he should only have been arrested after he had killed or maimed people. If I had a knife and said " I'm going to kill Oldie" (likewise not that I would despite our differences) is it better I'm arrested before I actually did the crime. I'm not trying to always get at Starmer but people here have ridiculed Coffey (Not that I totally agree with her views) based on her beliefs yet let Starmer get away with everything by trying to justify his views. |
|
|
|
Post by yattongas on Sept 8, 2022 14:28:40 GMT
Pray for Oldie š
|
|
|
|
Post by axegas on Sept 8, 2022 14:36:12 GMT
Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I disagree with that (sorry). If a lone bomber (not terrorism related) planned to bomb a london landmark but didn't achieve what he set out to do because he was arrested before hand you honestly believe he should only have been arrested after he had killed or maimed people. If I had a knife and said " I'm going to kill Oldie" (likewise not that I would despite our differences) is it better I'm arrested before I actually did the crime. I'm not trying to always get at Starmer but people here have ridiculed Coffey (Not that I totally agree with her views) based on her beliefs yet let Starmer get away with everything by trying to justify his views. I think it depends on how advanced his plans got. The security services look for intent, might be online posts, a telephone conversation, association with dangerous criminals. Whatever. The law is already acting at that intent stage to make people safe. Then if that lone bomber, takes steps to procure explosives, gets caught scouting out locations ect, the law kicks in and they've got something firm to use against them before they get the chance to wound or maim someone. It's important that the security services don't arrest them at that initial intent stage, because by putting them under observation, they might find that he/she is part of a broader plot or terrorist cell, and they might find out more details on who has the ability or means to supply such individuals with SEMTEX and catch them in the act as well. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 8, 2022 14:40:09 GMT
Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I disagree with that (sorry). If a lone bomber (not terrorism related) planned to bomb a london landmark but didn't achieve what he set out to do because he was arrested before hand you honestly believe he should only have been arrested after he had killed or maimed people. If I had a knife and said " I'm going to kill Oldie" (likewise not that I would despite our differences) is it better I'm arrested before I actually did the crime. I'm not trying to always get at Starmer but people here have ridiculed Coffey (Not that I totally agree with her views) based on her beliefs yet let Starmer get away with everything by trying to justify his views. That's the law, not my view. Unless it's specific such as terrorism then it's subjective. That is when the police, CPS and court decide. Your example is covered by law already which is where the argument falls down. The issue with Starmer and the case of the two doctors is that his involvement was when the Attorney General asked for legal clarification as to why the case didn't go to court. As DPP he had to explain the legal reasoning behind it (the actual decision was taken at a lower level) which the Attorney General accepted. (It's in my link). In this example you can't ascertain his view on abortion as it wasn't his decision nor was he directly involved. |
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 14:41:21 GMT
Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I disagree with that (sorry). If a lone bomber (not terrorism related) planned to bomb a london landmark but didn't achieve what he set out to do because he was arrested before hand you honestly believe he should only have been arrested after he had killed or maimed people. If I had a knife and said " I'm going to kill Oldie" (likewise not that I would despite our differences) is it better I'm arrested before I actually did the crime. I'm not trying to always get at Starmer but people here have ridiculed Coffey (Not that I totally agree with her views) based on her beliefs yet let Starmer get away with everything by trying to justify his views. A lone bomber would costitute terrorism. It's is a simple fact that some things are crimes of intent and others are not. Starmer did nothing wrong because no crime took place. Should it have been a crime? I think so, and it seems you do too. But it was not. |
|
|
|
Post by stuart1974 on Sept 8, 2022 14:42:24 GMT
Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I will try and recall my law degree,Mens Rea(intent) is particularly relevant in cases of murder ,you have to have an Intent to kill prior to executing your plan to be guilty of murder otherwise it's manslaughter. That's right, if it causes death but the intention wasn't to kill. |
|
|
|
Post by oldie on Sept 8, 2022 15:39:13 GMT
No point I am an atheist. š¤Ŗ |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Sept 8, 2022 15:54:03 GMT
Thank you for your reply. The reason for asking is that..... 1. "Sir" Keir Starmer threw his support behind a host of pro abortion pledges. One of these which he supported was to introduce abortion up to birth for any reason in the UK. 2. Whilst head of the CPS "Sir" Keir ruled against the prosecution of two doctors who were secretly filmed arranging sex selective abortions in a Telegraph expose. The CPS stated it was not in the "public interest" to prosecute the individuals. So people from the left need to look a little closer to home before ridiculing Therese Coffey on her beliefs. Is point 1 referring to the Manifesto and subsequent leadership contest? In which case it decriminalising abortion rather than legalising it. "But the 1967 act did not repeal the 1861 Offences Against The Persons Act, which still technically means that anyone who attempts to āprocure her own miscarriageā is committing a criminal act and subject to a jail sentence. Northern Ireland was always exempt from the 1967 reform, but last month MPs voted to abolish the 1861 act too, meaning the province is the only part of the UK where the practice is decriminalised." www.google.com/amp/s/www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/labour-manifesto-abortion-law-decriminalisation_uk_5dd428ebe4b08a4325e3a6f1/Point 2 was to do with clarifications regarding this case. "Jenny Hopkins, deputy chief Crown prosecutor for CPS London, said previously that the fact the abortions had not actually taken place influenced the decision not to proceed, saying a relevant factor was that the General Medical Council was already involved and had the power to strike doctors off the register." www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/decision-not-to-charge-two-doctors-over-genderbased-abortions-was-right-dpp-keir-starmer-says-8864400.html%3fampJust to highlight one thing nowhere does it state the criminal intent wasn't a crime. It only says it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute. Mr Starmer said ultimately it was not in the public interest to prosecute the doctors, but that did not mean criminal proceedings would not be brought in future cases involving abortions allegedly procured on the grounds of gender. Bit odd it wasn't in the public interest this time but it may be in the future. |
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 16:01:33 GMT
Just to highlight one thing nowhere does it state the criminal intent wasn't a crime. It only says it wasn't in the public interest to prosecute. Mr Starmer said ultimately it was not in the public interest to prosecute the doctors, but that did not mean criminal proceedings would not be brought in future cases involving abortions allegedly procured on the grounds of gender. Bit odd it wasn't in the public interest this time but it may be in the future. I agree with you that a prosecution would have been in the public interest but I think there may be a difference between a legal "in the public interest" and what should happen. The doctors were wrong and should face court but if there was no crime or decent chance of conviction (as no crime was committed) then it was not in the public (CPS) interests to take a case and lose. |
|
|
|
Post by francegas on Sept 8, 2022 16:02:59 GMT
Intent is subjective, unless it's specified such as the example Fintanstack gave. I will try and recall my law degree,Mens Rea(intent) is particularly relevant in cases of murder ,you have to have an Intent to kill prior to executing your plan to be guilty of murder otherwise it's manslaughter. Oh don't get wrong this is where the law stinks between murder and manslaughter which I've experienced personally having attended a trial at the Old Bailey in 2002. Do you believe the killer of the 9 yr old child in Liverpool is guilty of murder or the lesser crime of manslaughter. I.E. did he intend to kill her ? |
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 16:06:23 GMT
I will try and recall my law degree,Mens Rea(intent) is particularly relevant in cases of murder ,you have to have an Intent to kill prior to executing your plan to be guilty of murder otherwise it's manslaughter. Oh don't get wrong this is where the law stinks between murder and manslaughter which I've experienced personally having attended a trial at the Old Bailey in 2002. Do you believe the killer of the 9 yr old child in Liverpool is guilty of murder or the lesser crime of manslaughter. I.E. did he intend to kill her ? Unfortunately he will probably plead guilty to manslaughter and not even go to court. All this is frustrating, but gets you no closer to equating the lunatic Coffey with Stamer. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Sept 8, 2022 16:07:39 GMT
I will try and recall my law degree,Mens Rea(intent) is particularly relevant in cases of murder ,you have to have an Intent to kill prior to executing your plan to be guilty of murder otherwise it's manslaughter. Oh don't get wrong this is where the law stinks between murder and manslaughter which I've experienced personally having attended a trial at the Old Bailey in 2002. Do you believe the killer of the 9 yr old child in Liverpool is guilty of murder or the lesser crime of manslaughter. I.E. did he intend to kill her ? Yes, as soon as he pulled the trigger he intended to kill the person he shot. |
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 16:18:56 GMT
Oh don't get wrong this is where the law stinks between murder and manslaughter which I've experienced personally having attended a trial at the Old Bailey in 2002. Do you believe the killer of the 9 yr old child in Liverpool is guilty of murder or the lesser crime of manslaughter. I.E. did he intend to kill her ? Yes, as soon as he pulled the trigger he intended to kill the person he shot. It is not that simple I am afraid. If you stand next to Francegas and I intend to kill you but I accidentally shoot Francegas then that could potentially be manslaughter. |
|
|
|
Post by Gas Go Marching In on Sept 8, 2022 16:20:12 GMT
Yes, as soon as he pulled the trigger he intended to kill the person he shot. It is not that simple I am afraid. If you stand next to Francegas and I intend to kill you but I accidentally shoot Francegas then that could potentially be manslaughter. I know its not in reality but in my opinion it is. |
|
|
|
Post by fintanstack on Sept 8, 2022 16:21:56 GMT
It is not that simple I am afraid. If you stand next to Francegas and I intend to kill you but I accidentally shoot Francegas then that could potentially be manslaughter. I know its not in reality but in my opinion it is. I do not disagree. However, as with Francegas criticism of Stamer, opinion, common sense and law are not always the same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Sept 8, 2022 16:33:56 GMT
I will try and recall my law degree,Mens Rea(intent) is particularly relevant in cases of murder ,you have to have an Intent to kill prior to executing your plan to be guilty of murder otherwise it's manslaughter. Oh don't get wrong this is where the law stinks between murder and manslaughter which I've experienced personally having attended a trial at the Old Bailey in 2002. Do you believe the killer of the 9 yr old child in Liverpool is guilty of murder or the lesser crime of manslaughter. I.E. did he intend to kill her ? This where it gets murky ,a half decent prosecutor would argue that going equipped with a firearm must mean you had foreseen,had planned and had the intent to use the firearm which may cause murder, personally I would conclude the same unless there was a defence of Diminished Responsibility. |
|
