Habeas Corpus

[Moog]

I am assuming from the fact that Bradley Murdoch is being prosecuted for the murder of Peter Falconio despite the fact no body has ever been recovered means that this law doesn't apply in Australia. Does it still apply in the UK? And if so is the UK unique in having such a law?

[jenstar]

You mean does the UK have a law that says there has to be a body for someone to be convicted of murder? No, it doesn't. Quite a few murder convictions have been made without the body ever being found.

[smorodina]

Habeas Corpus has absolutely nothing to do with dead bodies. It is a writ that can be issued to bring an imprisined person before a court to determine the legality of the imprisonment. http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h1/habeasco.asp

[thewillow]

This isn't what habeas corpus means anyway. It's a writ ordering a prisoner to be brought before a judge

[Moog]

Hmmm maybe I don't mean Habeas Corpus, what about Corpus Delicti? I'm sure there was a law that you couldn't not be convicted of a person's murder unless there was a dead body?

[Moog]

feel free to ignore the double negative

[bernardo]

"Habeas Corpus" refers to the body of the prisoner being brought before the court, to show that he is alive and has not been disasppeared. The law relating to murder trials is that there has to be a "body of evidence" i.e. sufficient proof of the murder. This may be possible even with no body of the victim. e.g. some of the 9/11 victims whose bodies were completely pulverised and obliterated.

[FredPuli]

Habeas corpus. It's Latin for 'You may have the body' the opening words of the writ, the order,originally written in legal Latin, shown to the governor of the prison by the bearer who wants to take the prisoner to freedom; it's the Court's permission given to that person that he may have the person.. Corpus delicti is best translated as the 'body of evidence' or the 'ingredients of the offence'. It has nothing to do with corpses. The acid bath murderer Haig knew no Latin (or law) and thought it did, so he dissolved his victims in acid. He was hanged (see how he missed the benefits of a classical education ? ).

[FredPuli]

Corpus delicti has nothing to do with corpses either. It is best translated as either 'the body of evidence required' or 'the elements of the offence'. the acid bath murderer Haig thought it meant 'no corpse means no murder conviction' so he dissolved his victims. He was hanged

[Janetex]

Yes, so, Moog, the moral is "don't try this at home".

[TommyC]

Nine posts and you've all failed to answer the question (if I may be so bold..!!). There is NO ruling in English (or to my knowledge any other) law requiring the production of a body in order to get a murder conviction, because even the densest baddies would pretty soon cotton on that if they can hide the body cleverly enough they're home and dry. The only task facing the prosecution is that of showing that on the balance of the available evidence produced, the accused is guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt - with or without a body to prove death. This is entirely as it should be to the rational mind, but in addition in the case of the Australian guy, the police have a DNA match tying him inescapably to the girlfriend's clothing - not to mention what I understand was a very positive personal identification on her part.