I realise I risk sounding like a Daily Mail editorial, but when, last March, three men shot a gun into a shop surely they were intending to murder?
Thusha Kamaleswaran, 5, was shot in the chest and is crippled for life, and Roshan Selvakumar, 35, was shot in the face at Stockwell Food and Wine shop in Brixton but, of course, they or anyone else in that shop could easily have been killed.
And yet, somehow, a court has found the guilty of grievious bodily harm but not attempted murder.
I studied A-level law. I understand about mens rea etc. and yet I thoroughly disagree with the court's decision.
Surely, by firing a gun you intend to kill, even if the target isn't specific? If you don't want to kill you shouldn't be firing a weapon.
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label court. Show all posts
Monday, 26 March 2012
Sunday, 19 February 2012
COMMENT: why shouldn't Amanda Knox write a book?
Reports this week suggest that Amanda Knox is to be paid $4 million (£2.5 million) for a book telling her side of the story that lead to the murder of British student Meredith Kercher, Knox's trial, initial conviction, appeal and acquittal.
Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.
Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.
At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.
Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.
Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.
Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.
It's a ridiculous argument.
Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.
What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.
Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.
And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.
The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.
So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.
And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?
And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.
I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.
Some say this is wrong and that nobody should benefit from crime, but, hang on a minute, Amanda Knox isn't benefitting from crime. She was found not guilty on appeal. She was released. She is innocent.
Why shouldn't she sell her story? After all, chances are it's quite an interesting story.
At this point those who oppose the decision of Harper Collins, the publishing house that has offered Amanda Knox this large sum of money, tend to lose the plot. They seem to know better than the Italian judges who overturned the guilty decision, and who, quite categorically, said that she should be released because she did not commit the crime.
Then they refer to OJ Simpson and his trial for murder back in 1995. They say that he was really guilty of his crimes, despite the decision of the court. We may all have opinions on OJ, or Knox, or anyone else who is found guilty in a trial, or through an appeal, but whether we like it or not, if they are acquitted they are innocent in the eyes of the law and no amount of Daily Mail-esque tubthumping is going to stop that.
Now, unless your were in court for the whole of the appeal trial, or read every inch of the court report, unless you looked closely at every scrap of evidence, I don't think it's fair or reasonable to say she is really guilty and the court got it wrong.
Some, it seems, think she is guilty because they don't approve of her sexual morality, the sex games she is reported to have been part of. And because they don't like that they consider her a loose woman and so, obviously, guilty of murder and therefore shouldn't profit from the events.
It's a ridiculous argument.
Well, it's a ridiculous argument if the person is innocent. If the person has been found guilty it is, of course, another matter entirely.
What if Ian Huntley or Rose West had written a book about their life, detailing their crimes and giving their version of events? If that was the case I agree it would be wrong for them to benefit from any book, television programme or movie that they were involved in.
Having said that, I have no problem with people such as Huntley or West writing a book. Surely it is the right of every man, woman or child to present their story and if it is interesting the public will read it. But I do think the profits from any such book should be compulsorily given to charity, or in a kitty for the victims of crime.
And let's not forget that one of the greatest pieces of literature in the English language, The Ballad of Reading Gaol, was written by Oscar Wilde, a convicted felon about his time in prison.
The law in the UK was changed about 6 years ago, so that criminals cannot profit from the proceeds of crime. In fact, the law went further and made it possible for monies earnt after time had been served, even through non-criminal means, could be used for compensation to the victims of crime. A man who became known as the "Lottery Rapist" who money through the National Lottery many years after his crime. He had already served time in prison for his crimes but, when he won a small fortune on the lottery, the court said his victims were entitled to the money, even though he didn't have that money when he carried out his offences. To me that seems very odd indeed, but it was the sort of knee-jerk, tabloid approving law of which the last Labour government was fond.
So why would Amanda Knox decide to write this book? Sure, $4 million is a lot of money and will set her up for life but shouldn't she be moving on now? Shouldn't she be trying to put this behind her and getting on with her life? She is, after all, still very young and, as an innocent person, could still have a profession.
And what about the reaction to it? She was vilified in the press. Many column inches have expressed hatred for her based on the original trial and initial conviction and, sadly, as I have said, some people simply don't want to accept that the appeal court judges made it perfectly clear that she was guilty. Does she really want to go raking up the whole story again? Is it really worth the hassle of trying to set the record straight? Is telling her side of the story really that important to her?
And then there's the Kercher family. They've lost their daughter. They've been through the trial and thought that their daughter's killers were behind bars only to have to sit through an appeal trial and find that the police have the wrong person. Their daughter's killer is still not known, and could still be at large.
I cannot see any good reason why, if she wants to tell her story and make $4 million, Amanda Knox shouldn't write the book that Harper Collins have asked her to write but, at the same time, I think it is important, for the sake of justice and the sake of the Kercher family, that the police investigation is stepped up. And, of course, if the person who did actually murder Meredith Kercher were to be imprisoned it would help Amanda Knox get on with her life, with less of a shadow hanging over her.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Those of you who are saying that the murderer has been convicted and is in jail. Yes, Rudy Guede DID admit to having been in Kercher's room, and there was plenty of DNA evidence that proved this. However, he also said there was someone else there too. This, of course, tallied with the convictions of Knox and her boyfriend but now they have been acquitted the question of who the other man is needs addressing. Yes, it's very easy to say the murderer has been caught but his conviction was strongly linked to the convictions that have now been overturned. I maintain there is more to be established and the Kercher's do not know who killed their daughter.
Wednesday, 1 February 2012
COMMENT: John Terry's racism charge
Today John Terry found that the trial for his alleged use of racist insults against Antonio Ferdinand won't take place until 9th July - just over a week after the Euro 2012 Championships have finished.
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Terry has pleaded not guilty to making racist comments in a match between Chelsea and QPR last October. Today, in the Magistrates' Court, he pleaded "not guilty".
Now I realise and accept that, as the law stands, John Terry is currently innocent until proved otherwise. Howev, the police have investigated the accusations and the Criwn Prosecution Service have decided, based on that investigatin, that Terry has a case to answer.
Yes, the fact he has a case to answer doesn't stop him being innocent.It just means he has a case to answer.
But, should Terry go to Poland/Ukraine in June to represent England in the Euro 2012 Championships and, if he does go, should he still captain the England team (a position he only regained in March 2011 having been stripped of it a year earlier due to "troubles" in his private life)?
Personally, I think there are many issues that are raised if Terry is selected and goes:
1. What about his relationship with Les Ferdinand (Antonio Ferdinand's brother) who is likely to be in the England squad?
2. What of the FA's "KICK RACISM INTO TOUCH" campaign?
3. Will Terry's mind be on football or his impending court case?
4. Will he have the support of other black players in the squad?
5. What effect will it have on the FA's credibility?
I'm undecided. I strongly support the notion of innocent until proven guilty but I do wonder whether Terry's inclusion in the squad, let alone being captain, raises too many questions. It's not as if he has an unblemished past - there are several incidents in his past that make him an unsuitable ambassador for the country on the international stage.
I suspect the FA will somehow manage to fudge the issue... and hope he picks up a metatarsal injury in April/May that will prevent him going!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)