Gang who 'stoned man to death' get off?

[AB Asks]

A gang of youths who stoned a father to death whilst playing in a park with his son have had their convictions quashed. The boys' actions included throwing 'half a brick', wood and stones. The man collapsed with a heart attack and died in a pool of blood. The five schoolboys were charged with manslaughter but after debate yesterday the Lord Justice agreed that the man's death could not be placed on the boys. It was argued that the youths could not be held responsible as it could not be established which, or if any, of the boys' actions caused the man to have a heart attack. His family are angry and upset that these boys will be free before Christmas. What do you think? Is this fair? Should all of the boys conclude their two year sentence? Is this justice for the dead father's family?

[meredith101]

Forgive me, but I think you haven't.

[meredith101]

If you read quinlan's post, then read your answer, you'll see that you do not address any of the issues he raised. ??

[Quinlad]

Mrs T, what if there were more than 5 in the group? What if there were 50?

No, what if there were 5,000? An entire football stand hurling abuse from the terraces until someone fires a catapult at a player and kills him?

Assuming that forensic evidence proves inconclusive, do you convict all five thousand? Even if they don't give up the perpatrator?

No-one's saying that this situation is ideal. It's upsetting that the criminal justice system is unable to secure a conviction. But you can't say that the law is an ass just because it presumes innocence until it can prove guilt. That's what civilised society is based on.

[MrsT]

You are creating ever more bizzarre "what if" scenarios. I'm not trying to frame a flawless law here, I'm just indicating an approach. A "what if" scenario can always be invented to create a case where the law or indeed a proposed law should not apply. The cases need to be taken on their merits, you cannot create an all encompassing statement to cover any eventuality.

[Quinlad]

All I'm doing is testing your suggestion to see whether it still holds water for you.

Feel free to scale it back. How many people would have to be in the group for a manslaughter conviction to be unsafe in your eyes? When it's impossible to prove which member of the group was responsible.

You're quite wrong to say that all cases need to be taken on their merits. Judges are bound by statute and previous case law. They don't just sit there and use gut instinct or a hunch. They apply rules. Otherwise we'd be in serious trouble. So what's the rule here?

[MrsT]

The "charge" is decided by the Police and evaluated by the CPS so you'd have to let them decide for what they are going to prosecute. You cannot put a hard and fast number on it, it's not black an white. Even if I gave you a number you'll then you'd no doubt move on to some other detail, say what distance must they be within each other to constitut a group! Ok so you find it disturbing that I don't agree with you but I'm not going to change my mind based in your attempts to get a 100% blueprint definition out of this. Apparently they already have this law in Scotland I'd be happy to take their definition of it. Do you know what that is?

[Quinlad]

"The "charge" is decided by the Police and evaluated by the CPS so you'd have to let them decide for what they are going to prosecute."

And you'd have to let the courts decide whether to convict on that charge? Apparently not.

I don't find it disturbing that you don't agree with me. Just trying to understand where you're coming from. I always thought the presumpttion of innocence until proven guilt was pretty important to us.

[MrsT]

I thought we where talking about some sort of "acting in concert" law. Of course the courts decide and of course inocent until proven guilty etc. I am alluding to what should happen in terms of this "acting in concert" frame work. not what actually does happen. Do you know what the Scotish law says about this? How does it work in practice? any idea?

[meredith101]

Mrs T as far as I'm aware 'ACTING IN CONCERT' (had to shout somewhere ;p) is just what it says on the tin: they are all acting together to achieve one goal, and should be convicted the same way as jointly responsible for the outcome (they all had the same mens rea), even if in fact only one of them carried out the actual physical act that killed him.
eg. Scenario 1. Bobby gets a gun to go kill Mikey. He arrives at Mikeys and shoots at Mikey, but misses. He is not charged with murder. Ok Mikey is not dead, but bear with me.
Scenario 2. Bobby gets a gun to go kill Mikey, Teddy comes along to help him, also with a gun. Bobby shoots at Mikey but misses. Teddy shoots at the same time, hits and kills Mikey. Bobby is charged with murder, even though he misses just in the same way as in scenario 1.

It is, it turns out, fairly easy to prove that Bobby went along to shoot Mikey dead, he does not get off just because he is a poor shot.
In the case of the heart-attack-victim in original post, judging by the appeal information it is known that one rock hit the man on the head, leading probably to heart attack, they have difficulty showing who, if any of the accused, threw it. Even if they could, how do you prove that the others, in trying to hit him (or the stumps) with stones, were trying to deliver a fatal blow? Throwing rocks at someone for fun is terrible terrible thuggery, but is it *manslaughter*? Because someone else beside you threw a rock that killed him? You have a dead man, and a bunch of rocks and stones. But the law (and this is a very very good law, I have lived in places which do not have it), requires you to clearly prove that those you are prosecuting for the crime were guilty of his death. I just don't think you can do that here. Do you?

[MrsT]

Thanks for taking time to explain Meredith, I already understand the spirit and intenetion of the "acting in concert" law. I was really asking how it would be interpreted in the rock throwing scenario had it been in Scotland. As someone above mentioned that that was the law there. Presumably a thrown rock can kill if it hits a vital area so one must assume that by throwing one the thrower understands the possibility. Even if he is one of several people also throwing, the "acting in concert " part is clear.

[avoss]

as always, i blame the government. wheres the deterrent? bring back hangin`. murderers,paedos,rapists etc should all be tested on for curing diseases such as cancer,aids etc.






then hung.