Law.

[TWR]

This concerns & your views on how you would change the Law if you had the opportunity & chance to do so, so for each crime Eg/ Using your mobile whilst driving.

Burglary,
Muggings,
Assault,
Murder,
Manslaughter,
Breaking & entering,
Theft.

[nailit]

that tells me about inmates in a high secure unit. It tells me nothing about your average con going through the justice system.

[daftgrandad]

"Driving whilst talking on mobile phone"

£500 fine and 6 months ban.

Not too many sales reps or lorry drivers,would like the thought of this.

[Baldric]

TWR @ 10:57;
Are you suggesting CCTV Operators should be prosecuted?

[nailit]

TWR, I'm still confused. What does a high security mental health unit have to do with the justice system?

[ummmm]

Funny that TWR. I used to work in a psychiatric hospital where many of the patients have been transferred from prison. I have never heard any patients utter words like you've heard.

[EvianBaby]

I'd miss you if you ever stopped posting TWR.

[nailit]

I was looking forward to this thread, seems to have died a death...

[TWR]

I thought the post was understandable! It seems only Zac could understand it, the Fines that people get as an example, Mobile use whilst driving, £30 + 3 points, do you think that is harsh enough or do you think it should more a ban & higher fine? To Ummmm, yes I have heard the Users come out with these statements otherwise I would not have said it, regards your reply baldric, how many CCTVs do you see in towns, cities, on the motorways that are used to monitor the traffic? the operators could use the evidence to prosecute mobile phone users, I wounder if these replies can be understood?or is it only Zac that can understand?

[sandyRoe]

Anyone convicted of crimes of violence should be birched. About 50 strokes at the start of their sentence and then the same on the morning of their release from custody.

[jackthehat]

That's not the Law being changed.......that's the sentencing.

An important difference.

[Baldric]

Zac,
"too broad a question" (10:28)
"very difficult to answer, do you expect us to answer for every crime" (10:36).
"I thought it was a reminder of what crimes were" (10:49)

If you say so TWR

[sandyRoe]

True. The law would need changing to include a mandatory birching in the sentence.

[TWR]

It would be positive to get a decent reply from a few Balric instead of sarcasm, but after all this is a site that the richness use isn't it.

[Baldric]

It would be nice to get an understandable post / response for once!

[FredPuli43]

Murder. It's a mystery why the necessary intent for murder is different from that for attempted murder. Obviously, to atttempt murder you have to have the intention of killing someone. It's an attempt to commit the full offence. But, to commit murder , the intent need not be to kill. If the accused intended only to cause grievous bodily harm, but the victim dies in consequence of the assault, he is guilty of murder.

When this interpretation was considered by the Judicial Committee of the House of Lords , their Lordships said that it had long been the common law that gbh was the only intent necessary and therefore the appellant, Smith, was guilty of murder. He had been driving a car away from a robbery. A policeman tried to stop him. The policeman landed on the bonnet but Smith drove on and the officer was thrown under a passing bus and killed. Surely that was manslaughter, not murder, but their Lordships were seemingly much swayed by the fact that this was killing in the course of crime and they didn't feel inclined to be generous. 'Hard cases make bad law'. This one has settled intent in murder to this day.

[Baldric]

You seem to carry a lot of prejudice/resentment TWR.

[TWR]

End Of.