Donate SIGN UP

Collective Resposibility

Avatar Image
Khandro | 09:09 Sat 02nd Sep 2017 | News
114 Answers
As some will know, I've been advocating this on here for a long time, finally the penny seems to have dropped. It makes sense, wouldn't you agree?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/terrorists-families-friends-should-be-jailed-failing-alert-authorities-police-max-hill-isis-legal-a7924941.html
Gravatar

Answers

61 to 80 of 114rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Best Answer

No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. 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.
'Proven' as relates to knowing and doing nothing would only come about after questioning and if a confession was forthcoming.
Khandro - A thought occurs.

Since you advocate the imprisonment of people who 'knew' a crime was going to be committed -

I - and millions of others - 'knew' that the British government sanctioned what may still be proven to be an illegal war.

If Tony Blair is imprisoned as a war criminal, does that mean we all go to jail as well, because we 'knew' about his crime in advance of its commission?

I just want to be sure that your notion is applied fairly - to all terrorists, and all the people who knew of their crimes in advance.
Aiding/abetting and harbouring could also involve evidence based investigation.
Mamya - // 'Proven' as relates to knowing and doing nothing would only come about after questioning and if a confession was forthcoming. //

Do you really expect anyone to admit to knowing about a crime, and going to prison for that, when all they have to do is deny all knowledge?

Remember - the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, not the defendant. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that someone 'knew' about a crime in advance of its commission.

Just how likely do you think that is going to be?
Mamya - //Aiding/abetting and harbouring could also involve evidence based investigation. //

Now you are shifting the goal posts.

Aiding, abetting, and harbouring are all concrete concepts, capable of proof by evidence, which is how the law operates.

That is a universe away from the 'thought crime' that Khandro is proposing.
Sorry Andy, I haven't got all night - those are my thoughts.

Screw them up and chuck em away.
Mamya - no need to apologise - thinking is free - well it is unless Khandro gets his way!!!

Thanks for the exchange.

Good night all xx.
^^ This is what I and others have been trying to point out from the beginning of this question. If the police say that someone must have known another person was going to commit a terrorist act all they have to do is to deny it. It is impossible to prove someone knew something unless they admit it, the case can never be proved.
The only cases where there has been a successful prosecution for this is where several other people have all sworn under oath that they told the accused about it and a jury has believed them rather than the defendant.
The only difference between Halal meat and non Halal meat is that for Halal a tape loop of prayers is constantly playing in the slaughter house.//

Not true, Eddie,, but I'm sure an apparent expert like yourself already knew that.
andy-hughes

Just to point out something (and this is where we need clarification from khandro).

In gathering evidence about a terrorist attack, police will seize the mobile phones and the computer of the suspect.

If they find evidence of communications about the attack (eg. emails, social media posts or texts), and there is a dialogue about it between the suspect and a third party, that would prove that the third party knew about it. In that situation, it could be argued that not alerting the authorities is a criminal offence.

However, khandro needs to clarify whether he's talking about that or whether he is advocating collective responsibility even when there is no evidence that the family of the suspect knew anything at all.

There former has merit. The latter is just a terrible idea.
The fact that there have been successful prosecutions under Section 38 of the 2000 Terrorism Act and instances where the accused pled guilty under that offence, shows it is not unworkable.
Question Author
Admiring a middle eastern judicial system to make a point about anti terrorism. Mmm.
khandro

It would be great if you could clarify what you're advocating. What penny has finally dropped? I ask because it appears from the article you linked to, that the penny dropped back in the late nineties when the 'Terrorism Act 2000' was placed on the statute books.
// sp; Max Hill QC says failure to report terrorist activity deserves a prison sentence and I agree,//

we all agree - it is s 32 of the Terrorism Act
sort of like this:

Omer Almagboul and Shadi Abdelgadir
This trial dealt with those who had assisted Hussein Osman in the immediate aftermath of the attempted bombings in London on 21 July 2005.They were charged with assisting an offender and also with failing to give information.

Kabashi pleaded guilty on 18 February 2008.

There was then a trial involving the 5 others. All members of the Girma family convicted and Almagboul and Abdelgadir were acquiited.

Yeshi Girma (Hussain Osman's wife) received a total of 15 years imprisonmen; 5 years for having information prior to the bombings but failing to tell the police, 5 years consecutive for having information after the bombings and failing to tell the police and a further 5 years consecutive for assisting Osman avoid arrest.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/ctd_2007.html#a05

so whadda we debating ?

AB re writes criminal law - oops they dont need to re write it as the law is as wanted
I liked the name 'Shady' - obviously guilty in the court of AB!
hur hur hur
PP

Yes...I'm at a loss as to what khandro's point is here. It needs to be expanded on.
PP, my own point on this thread was that some on here seem to think that it should only be possible to charge people with failing to give information on terrorism if you equally apply that to people who fail to give information on benefit fraud etc., which is clearly poppycock.

I wonder if the phrase ‘thought police’ would carry the same negative connotation had it come from a utopian rather than dystopian futuristic novel, where the thought police prevented acts of terrorism and mass murder from happening. They might even have been the heroes in the novel.
There could never be a novel with a truthful scenario where a society with thought police would be utopian. 1984 (and quite a few other SF novels) works so well as a distopian novel because of what a society with thought police might be like.
Garaman, why is it poppycock? standards of evidence are the same whatever the crime (oh except for the DDA and we all know what a mess up that has been)

61 to 80 of 114rss feed

First Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next Last

Do you know the answer?

Collective Resposibility

Answer Question >>

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.