Politics0 min ago
Law.
37 Answers
This concerns & your views on how you would change the Law if you had the opportunity & chance to do so, so for each crime Eg/ Using your mobile whilst driving.
Burglary,
Muggings,
Assault,
Murder,
Manslaughter,
Breaking & entering,
Theft.
Burglary,
Muggings,
Assault,
Murder,
Manslaughter,
Breaking & entering,
Theft.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by TWR. 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 thought the post was understandable! It seems only Zac could understand it, the Fines that people get as an example, Mobile use whilst driving, £30 + 3 points, do you think that is harsh enough or do you think it should more a ban & higher fine? To Ummmm, yes I have heard the Users come out with these statements otherwise I would not have said it, regards your reply baldric, how many CCTVs do you see in towns, cities, on the motorways that are used to monitor the traffic? the operators could use the evidence to prosecute mobile phone users, I wounder if these replies can be understood?or is it only Zac that can understand?
Murder. It's a mystery why the necessary intent for murder is different from that for attempted murder. Obviously, to atttempt murder you have to have the intention of killing someone. It's an attempt to commit the full offence. But, to commit murder , the intent need not be to kill. If the accused intended only to cause grievous bodily harm, but the victim dies in consequence of the assault, he is guilty of murder.
When this interpretation was considered by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords , their Lordships said that it had long been the common law that gbh was the only intent necessary and therefore the appellant, Smith, was guilty of murder. He had been driving a car away from a robbery. A policeman tried to stop him. The policeman landed on the bonnet but Smith drove on and the officer was thrown under a passing bus and killed. Surely that was manslaughter, not murder, but their Lordships were seemingly much swayed by the fact that this was killing in the course of crime and they didn't feel inclined to be generous. 'Hard cases make bad law'. This one has settled intent in murder to this day.
When this interpretation was considered by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords , their Lordships said that it had long been the common law that gbh was the only intent necessary and therefore the appellant, Smith, was guilty of murder. He had been driving a car away from a robbery. A policeman tried to stop him. The policeman landed on the bonnet but Smith drove on and the officer was thrown under a passing bus and killed. Surely that was manslaughter, not murder, but their Lordships were seemingly much swayed by the fact that this was killing in the course of crime and they didn't feel inclined to be generous. 'Hard cases make bad law'. This one has settled intent in murder to this day.