[Gllug] [OT] Technobabble

[Ben Whyte]

Tom Schutzer-Weissmann wrote:

>On Tue, 2005-11-15 at 09:39 +0000, Ben Whyte wrote:
>
>  
>
>>In that set of circumstances you can charge them, but in most 
>>circumstances you need to have evidence which prooves the offence to 
>>charge someone.  You are not allowed to charge someone with suspicion of 
>>something, you can however arrest them and bail them.  However allowing 
>>people who may or may not have terrorist links to wander around on bail 
>>why you gather the evidence isnt really a very good idea.
>>    
>>
>
>If, as you seem to assume, everyone suspected of a crime is guilty of
>it, then it isn't such a good idea to let them wander around on bail
>until sufficient evidence can be gathered to convict them - it also
>seems a bit pointless to need evidence to convict them at all, since
>your suspicion suffices.
>
>We are being encouraged to consider suspects with guilty people who have
>inconsiderately strayed from the proof of their guilt, and the process
>of conviction as one of mere form. They're not and it isn't.
>
>We're also encouraged to believe that the only way to restrain people is
>by convicting them of a crime so that we can then lock them up for it
>(and we need to lock them until until we can convict them, too). This is
>surely an unhealthy confusion, and means we neglect other - legal -
>means of restraint.
>
>Regards,
>Tom SW
>  
>

Tom

I am not assuming everyone suspected of a crime is guilty, which is why 
they can not charge you with suspicion of a crime, they can only arrest 
you to assist in enquiries.

I belive far too many people get bail when they shouldnt as a result of 
the way the judicary apply, their own standards to everyone.  I.e. I 
would never dream of failing to report to the police or fail to turn up 
at court.  Also for some offenses the duty of care to the public should 
lead to the person being detained on remand until such time as they can 
be tried for this crime.  This should be done as fast as possible and 
the same standards should apply for bail cases, the process should be as 
fast as possible.

I would argue that for some very serious offenses the ability to hold 
before charging whilst gaining evidence is a vital power, one which the 
police have currently although on seriously limited scales.  However if 
the police are given this power it needs to be overseen, not by 
magistrates but by judges, sitting in almost all circumstances in open 
court and on a regular basis, i.e. at least once every 7 days.

Occasionally we have to make judgemnets about which human right is more 
important, and in this case the right not to be the victim of a 
preventable criminal offence, because terrorism is plain and simple 
crime just the same as anything else, overides the right to not be detained.

Ben


-- 
Gllug mailing list  -  Gllug at gllug.org.uk
http://lists.gllug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/gllug