If You Wanted Confirmationour...
News1 min ago
Max Clifford Charged On 11 Counts
http://
11 counts of indecent assault between 1966 and 1985, victimes aged from 14 to 19.
Perhaps we are now getting to the sharp end of all these investigations.
11 counts of indecent assault between 1966 and 1985, victimes aged from 14 to 19.
Perhaps we are now getting to the sharp end of all these investigations.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by bibblebub. 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 appreciate that this example isn't morally equivalent to Clifford, but let's say you know someone who on the side is also a hit man. He's charming, cares for his children, and often gives money to charity.
Would you shrug off his business practices in how you assess his character?
Now, I'm *not* saying Clifford is morally comparable to a hit man. He isn't - not by a long shot. The reason I use the example is that I do think that there's something wrong with saying 'you can't just judge him by his business practices', because if his business practices got 'bad enough' then I don't think any sensible person would do so in other circumstances.
Well, for some us, Clifford's actions in the public domain are 'bad enough' to earn him a rather odious reputation.
Would you shrug off his business practices in how you assess his character?
Now, I'm *not* saying Clifford is morally comparable to a hit man. He isn't - not by a long shot. The reason I use the example is that I do think that there's something wrong with saying 'you can't just judge him by his business practices', because if his business practices got 'bad enough' then I don't think any sensible person would do so in other circumstances.
Well, for some us, Clifford's actions in the public domain are 'bad enough' to earn him a rather odious reputation.
I don't know any of them personally so have very few views about them in relation to this. As individual performers I think Jim Davidson is a racist twerp, Freddie Starr is mentally unstable and Rolf Harris is a pretty talented artist. I have NO opinion on whether they are guilty or not because like everyone else I simply don't know.
Certainly can in the USA, Fred, the Robert Durst case for example in Texas.
n 2003, Durst went on trial for the murder of Morris Black. He hired defence attorney Dick DeGuerin and claimed self-defence. During cross-examination, Durst admitted to using a paring knife, two saws and an axe to dismember Black's body before dumping his remains in Galveston Bay. The jury acquitted him of 1st degree murder and just as well it was that.
To be 1st degree (and hence executable, the evidence presented by the prosecution and police has to be totally convincing to condemn him. In this case they were sloppy, thinking that it was a slam-dunk case. The defence blew holes in it. If they had gone for 2nd degree (life), then yes, they would have had him as more circumstantial is allowed. In short the prosecution were amateurish and the verdict was the correct one in the interests of justice to the legal system, maybe not to the Black family.
Double jeopardy then applies over there.
I am sure there are cases over here and Barmaid or New Judge maybe able to give specific examples. Such 'screw-ups' keep the system in the state of integrity and thoroughness that we rightfully should demand.
n 2003, Durst went on trial for the murder of Morris Black. He hired defence attorney Dick DeGuerin and claimed self-defence. During cross-examination, Durst admitted to using a paring knife, two saws and an axe to dismember Black's body before dumping his remains in Galveston Bay. The jury acquitted him of 1st degree murder and just as well it was that.
To be 1st degree (and hence executable, the evidence presented by the prosecution and police has to be totally convincing to condemn him. In this case they were sloppy, thinking that it was a slam-dunk case. The defence blew holes in it. If they had gone for 2nd degree (life), then yes, they would have had him as more circumstantial is allowed. In short the prosecution were amateurish and the verdict was the correct one in the interests of justice to the legal system, maybe not to the Black family.
Double jeopardy then applies over there.
I am sure there are cases over here and Barmaid or New Judge maybe able to give specific examples. Such 'screw-ups' keep the system in the state of integrity and thoroughness that we rightfully should demand.
-- answer removed --
http://
WARNING - not pretty reading but here is one that got off on a technicality though the accused was most likely guilty.
WARNING - not pretty reading but here is one that got off on a technicality though the accused was most likely guilty.
Hardly, DTC. Read how the judge described the police's conduct. A confession freely made is one thing, this is quite another and is, in any case, doubtful as a result. It's unfortunate if police are going to proceed as though the law, which is to protect all of us, had never existed. This nothing new; alleged confessions have been excluded on these grounds for centuries. The law is basically common law.
A "technicality" as I see it, occurs, for example, when the Parliamentary draftsman has used slightly different words, for what is meant to be the same thing, in separate parts of the same Act. I have seen that in a Firearms Act and, it could be argued, the result was that the appellant lost. She'd have stood a slightly better chance had the intention of Parliament not been suggested in the curious choice of different wording, rather than what the intention really must have been.
Mr Freeman, "Mr Loophole", is said to get celebrities acquitted of driving offences on "technicalities". Most of his results seem to be for his powers of persuasion rather than the law being technical but the rest are down to his knowing the law better than the CPS or the police. The result is then described as "on a technicality". If the procedures required are "technical", the fact is that is how Parliament and the Minister whose department has written the Regulations, has said they must be. That Mr Freeman has gone to the trouble to study them and look for weaknesses, is reasonable enough.
Mr Freeman, "Mr Loophole", is said to get celebrities acquitted of driving offences on "technicalities". Most of his results seem to be for his powers of persuasion rather than the law being technical but the rest are down to his knowing the law better than the CPS or the police. The result is then described as "on a technicality". If the procedures required are "technical", the fact is that is how Parliament and the Minister whose department has written the Regulations, has said they must be. That Mr Freeman has gone to the trouble to study them and look for weaknesses, is reasonable enough.
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.