Yorkshire Air Ambulance (Closes...
Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
What King Of An Idiot Would Video Themselves While Committing A Crime, And Then Up Load The Video On Social Media?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Hymie. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
// I wouldn't call causing death by dangerous driving a "driving infringement" //
The term infringements ought be exclusive to minor offences. Therefore death by dangerous driving falls into a different category and would more aptly be classified as a serious crime.
The PM failing to wear a seatbelt was guilty of a minor offence and penalised accordingly.
Of course, the more serious offence is the potential harm to his party. In the event they were to lose the next GE, some may feel justified in describing his actions as a crime.
The term infringements ought be exclusive to minor offences. Therefore death by dangerous driving falls into a different category and would more aptly be classified as a serious crime.
The PM failing to wear a seatbelt was guilty of a minor offence and penalised accordingly.
Of course, the more serious offence is the potential harm to his party. In the event they were to lose the next GE, some may feel justified in describing his actions as a crime.
//The term infringements ought be exclusive to minor offences. Therefore death by dangerous driving falls into a different category and would more aptly be classified as a serious crime.//
Indeed. But the legislation for both of those you mention refers to an "offence", not a "crime" or "criminal activity" (even though both are crimes).
Indeed. But the legislation for both of those you mention refers to an "offence", not a "crime" or "criminal activity" (even though both are crimes).
//As you were to discover through your own research, it appears the legislature covering ALL criminal activity are indeed not crimes but offences.//
They are both, Zebu. They are criminal offences – in short, crimes.
If I recall correctly (it was a while ago now) this began with a poster suggesting that failing to wear a seatbelt was not a crime. I explained that it was, if for no other reason that it ultimately can end up being dealt with in a criminal court.
You believed the description was a bit harsh:
//The words 'committed a crime' in relation to say a driving offence such as 'no windscreen fluid in washer bottle, which as a consequence would lead to an over zealous policeman issuing a fixefd penalty notice, seems at best a misnomer and at worst draconian.//
That may well be true, but it doesn’t alter the facts. To muddy the waters a little there are a number of motoring “infringements”, many of which were once part of the criminal code, but which have indeed been “decriminalised”. Parking, box junction infringements, bus lane encroachments to name a few. These are handled normally by Local Authorities and are not generally dealt with by Magistrates’ Courts. Instead they go to an independent adjudicator and any penalties that remain unpaid when that process has been exhausted are pursued through the County (i.e. Civil) court system.
But meanwhile, seat belt offences remain firmly on the “criminal” side of the fence. Those who commit them and are convicted of them are criminals.
They are both, Zebu. They are criminal offences – in short, crimes.
If I recall correctly (it was a while ago now) this began with a poster suggesting that failing to wear a seatbelt was not a crime. I explained that it was, if for no other reason that it ultimately can end up being dealt with in a criminal court.
You believed the description was a bit harsh:
//The words 'committed a crime' in relation to say a driving offence such as 'no windscreen fluid in washer bottle, which as a consequence would lead to an over zealous policeman issuing a fixefd penalty notice, seems at best a misnomer and at worst draconian.//
That may well be true, but it doesn’t alter the facts. To muddy the waters a little there are a number of motoring “infringements”, many of which were once part of the criminal code, but which have indeed been “decriminalised”. Parking, box junction infringements, bus lane encroachments to name a few. These are handled normally by Local Authorities and are not generally dealt with by Magistrates’ Courts. Instead they go to an independent adjudicator and any penalties that remain unpaid when that process has been exhausted are pursued through the County (i.e. Civil) court system.
But meanwhile, seat belt offences remain firmly on the “criminal” side of the fence. Those who commit them and are convicted of them are criminals.
// seat belt offences... Those who commit them and are convicted of them are criminals. //
Surely then, since the PM was not convicted he has done no more than commit a minor offence. The supposed 'criminal' element of his actions never came to fruition. Prompt payment of the FPN ensured he was safe guarded from being subpoenaed.
Surely then, since the PM was not convicted he has done no more than commit a minor offence. The supposed 'criminal' element of his actions never came to fruition. Prompt payment of the FPN ensured he was safe guarded from being subpoenaed.
We're splitting hairs. He was not convicted but that does not mean he did not commit the offence. A criminal offence is committed as soon as the perpetrator commits it. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal convention, not a fact and whether he is convicted or not is immaterial to the offence having been committed. I think this could run and run - if we let it. Alas I'm not prepared to. :-)
//Surely, if a person has been found not guilty of an offence, it has not been proven an offence occurred in the first place?//
It merely shows there was insufficient evidence to prove (to the very high criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt") that the defendant is guilty. It results in them being declared Not Guilty, not that were necessarily innocent. It certainly does not prove that the offence did not occur.
There seems to be confusion between fact and legal findings. Fact is what happened; legal findings are what can be proved happened.
It merely shows there was insufficient evidence to prove (to the very high criminal standard of "beyond reasonable doubt") that the defendant is guilty. It results in them being declared Not Guilty, not that were necessarily innocent. It certainly does not prove that the offence did not occur.
There seems to be confusion between fact and legal findings. Fact is what happened; legal findings are what can be proved happened.
//After a Not Guilty verdict, he or she must remain innocent…//
As I said, Corby, you are getting legal terminology and convention confused with fact.
If I walk into Sainsbury’s, put a packet of crisps under my coat and walk out without paying, then eat them on the way home, a crime has been committed by me. I have committed theft; I have taken the packet of crisps from Sainsbury’s without their consent and with intent to permanently deprive them of it. They are a packet of crisps short and I am one to the good.
If nobody saw me commit this unspeakable act and I was not caught on CCTV, there would be no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. I would not be prosecuted; I would not be found guilty. But I committed the crime nonetheless and I am guilty of it. But by legal convention I am, and will remain “innocent” (or more properly, “not guilty”, because we’re talking of legal convention, not fact). And quite right so.
//…and therefore, there has been no offence committed.//
If you contend that no offence has been committed unless and until somebody has been convicted of it, then the police would have no “unsolved crimes” on their books. But clearly they do – lots of them. You could argue that they remain merely "allegations" but, in the case of Sainsbury's and their packet of crisps, there would be no doubt in my mind, having been the person who stole them, that a criminal offence had been committed.
As I said, Corby, you are getting legal terminology and convention confused with fact.
If I walk into Sainsbury’s, put a packet of crisps under my coat and walk out without paying, then eat them on the way home, a crime has been committed by me. I have committed theft; I have taken the packet of crisps from Sainsbury’s without their consent and with intent to permanently deprive them of it. They are a packet of crisps short and I am one to the good.
If nobody saw me commit this unspeakable act and I was not caught on CCTV, there would be no evidence to support a criminal prosecution. I would not be prosecuted; I would not be found guilty. But I committed the crime nonetheless and I am guilty of it. But by legal convention I am, and will remain “innocent” (or more properly, “not guilty”, because we’re talking of legal convention, not fact). And quite right so.
//…and therefore, there has been no offence committed.//
If you contend that no offence has been committed unless and until somebody has been convicted of it, then the police would have no “unsolved crimes” on their books. But clearly they do – lots of them. You could argue that they remain merely "allegations" but, in the case of Sainsbury's and their packet of crisps, there would be no doubt in my mind, having been the person who stole them, that a criminal offence had been committed.
//NJ, are you claiming that the presumption of innocent until proven guilty is false?//
No not at all, Corby. It is a very important legal convention that is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. But it doesn’t override facts. In my “packet of crisps” example, a crime has been committed by me. It is absolutely clear. I may never be convicted of it, but it was committed nonetheless. If by some misfortune I finished up in court to face the charge, as guilty as I am (in fact) I would begin my trial innocent (by convention). But it’s a convention, devised to set the structure of our criminal justice procedure.
When you suggest that no offence has been committed unless somebody has been convicted, just consider this: imagine the convention was “guilty until proven innocent”. In that event, using your convention (but reversed) a crime must have been committed unless somebody is charged and acquitted. Surely you can see the difference between the legal convention (which places the burden on the Crown to prove guilt) and fact.
//If someone admits to a crime he or she did not commit and is found to be guilty, has that person committed a crime?//
No. He has been wrongly convicted. And that perfectly demonstrates my point. You need to separate legal conventions and terms from fact. In that instance, no crime has been committed (or at least, not by that particular defendant) but he has been convicted of it. His conviction does not alter the fact that it either was not committed at all, or committed by somebody else. In the same way, “innocent until proven guilty” does not trump what has actually happened. They may coincide, but it’s not a given.
No not at all, Corby. It is a very important legal convention that is the cornerstone of our criminal justice system. But it doesn’t override facts. In my “packet of crisps” example, a crime has been committed by me. It is absolutely clear. I may never be convicted of it, but it was committed nonetheless. If by some misfortune I finished up in court to face the charge, as guilty as I am (in fact) I would begin my trial innocent (by convention). But it’s a convention, devised to set the structure of our criminal justice procedure.
When you suggest that no offence has been committed unless somebody has been convicted, just consider this: imagine the convention was “guilty until proven innocent”. In that event, using your convention (but reversed) a crime must have been committed unless somebody is charged and acquitted. Surely you can see the difference between the legal convention (which places the burden on the Crown to prove guilt) and fact.
//If someone admits to a crime he or she did not commit and is found to be guilty, has that person committed a crime?//
No. He has been wrongly convicted. And that perfectly demonstrates my point. You need to separate legal conventions and terms from fact. In that instance, no crime has been committed (or at least, not by that particular defendant) but he has been convicted of it. His conviction does not alter the fact that it either was not committed at all, or committed by somebody else. In the same way, “innocent until proven guilty” does not trump what has actually happened. They may coincide, but it’s not a given.
Latest Posts
Body & Soul1 min ago
Animals & Nature5 mins ago
ChatterBank5 mins ago
Developing Fast': Britain Facing...
News9 mins ago
Jobs & Education10 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.