
- Thread starter
- #41
It featured heavily when Judges and Juries came up in my studies and my study group nearly came to blows over interpretation of Intent versus Culpability or in legal language, Mens Rea v. Actus Reus.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Not being educated in Law (and looking at it from a UK perspective), I would say that there was no premeditated intent on behalf of the child (i.e. no pre-planned thoughts of the child to cause injury or death to anyone below). I would class the incident as an accident (horrible, though the outcome was). Was the child of an age where they could be held responsible for their actions? And, are parents expected to be accountable for every single action of their child (even if they have always taught 'right from wrong?').A legal problem has been presented to me and although I know the solution it being a basic tenet of legal study, May One ask the thoughts of the lay membership?
You are walking atop a cliff edge and your child throws an object over that cliff. Unknown to the child, and it being a blind vista, the object strikes a person on the beach below and kills the citizen. Who is
liable for the death and was there intent involved in the action of the child?
Going back to jurors and verdicts, it is the risk society takes when placing the liberties and in some jurisdictions the lives of defendants in the hands of ordinary peers whom by nature are ignorant of the niceties of the Law.
It is the sworn duty of Councel to use ' best endeavours ' in the interests of their client. Prosecutors for The Crown and defenders for the accused. The presiding judge places the Law before the jury whilst summing up and occasionally may direct a jury to aquit but NOT compel such an action. It is a foundation of justice that the decision of a jury is final.
It is the nature of democracy that dissent is tolerated to the extent that a jury can disregard the Judiciary in matters of deliberation at the conclusion of a trial. We may disagree with and ridicule a verdict but this a precious freedom we would be wise to protect...it could be you on the jury or a defendant one day and thankful we do not go in for kangaroo courts!
As to the victims, it is open to them to pursue a civil damages claim if a criminal trial fails them. A lower threshold of proof may be in their favour.
All the above is my considered opinion.
Thank you for that JENNYJET.My understanding is that the evidence was incontrovertible and somewhat rich of content however the jury might appear to have allowed personal beliefs and emotion to over ride the direction of the judge as to the relevant laws in force and by which the trial was conducted.
Remember also that as things stand, this is now Case Law and can be used as precedent thus causing further muddle in some minds and giving juries justification in disregarding a judge. Further, those aquitted cannot be retried on the same charge under Double Jeopardy rules but the fact they stood trial can be considered if a further offence of a similar nature occurs. Free they may be but they now have a history that can be used against them!
Clearly KARFA, you know best in these matters. Please enlighten me!
Subscribe to help support your favourite forum and in return we'll remove all our advertisements. Your contribution will help to pay for things like site maintenance, domain name renewals and annual server charges.