Justice?

[DJHawkes]

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/texas-dad-beats-his-daughters-child-molester-to-death-he-wont-be-charged/

different way of dealing with it

[mikey4444]

America is fast becoming known as the place where murder is OK, at least it is if you are white. Can you imagine what would have been the result if the this Texas dad had been black ?

[Dee Sa]

he did what he had to do [ the father]. who would not go into a blind rage at the sight of your 5yr old being molested ?

[FredPuli43]

He'd have a defence in Britain. He'd plead what we call "diminished responsibility". This is a defence to murder and is based, in a case like this, on the defendant losing his self- control when subject to extreme provocation. However, the defence only reduces murder to manslaughter. But the penalty for manslaughter can be anything from a fine or conditional discharge to a long term of imprisonment, whereas for murder it is only life imprisonment.

The Grand Jury serves the purpose of a magistrates court in deciding whether the prosecution have established a prima facie case, in what we call committal [for trial ] proceedings. Committal proceedings have effectively been abolished here. Now, in such cases, the defendant appears in the magistrates court and the case is immediately sent to the Crown Court. As suggested above, the function of the magistrates, in deciding whether there is a case fit to be tried, is now performed by the CPS

[ChillDoubt]

Reminds me of this case.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpdKyZ-J8Fw

[gness]

Now you have put me in a quandary, Chill. In the position of the first father I know I would have done the same if able.
With time to think of the consequences for my family as the second father had....would I have killed the man? I don't know if I could...but then again I would have wanted to hurt him for what he did...difficult one isn't it?

[Clanad]

Essentially untrue, jno re: " In Texas, it was done by officials rather than by the public.." A Grand Jury is made up of citizens called to jury duty. They hear the case in its entirety, including from the prosecuting attorney. The only difference being a grand Jury usually sits for several months with the same jurors. Witnesses sworn to silence can be called, but rarely.

In this case, to be taken to trial would have meant divulging the identity of the defending father, meaning divulging the identitiy of the 5 year old (although she would not have been officialy named).

Quick justice, seems to me... with emphasis on justice...

[Canary42]

So, if you want to murder someone in the US, just invite them round, kill them, and then allege you caught them sexually assaulting your baby - nobody to refute your claim so you get away with it. Chilling.

[gness]

Not sure it works quite like that, Canary...or at least in this case.

[Clanad]

You must have read a different news article, Canary... not the one posted with the OP

[jno]

thanks for the explanation, Clanad. Does that mean the case could in effect go to two juries, one of which would decide that a second one should hear the case? What would be the difference between the two jury hearings? Is it just that one is in private? (In Britain the names of the victim and her family in such a case would normally be suppressed in a court case anyway.)

[FredPuli43]

Should have added that , in the UK he might be acquitted on grounds of self-defence, which extends to defending your child (among others)

[Clanad]

jno, apologies for being tardy... Yes, the Grand Jury decides if there's enough merit to the evidence to proceed with a trial. Some States have trial by jury for certain types of charges, while other States would try the same case by Judge only.

Most jury tried cases are before a 12 person jury, while some lesser cases might be before a 6 person jury.

No one who sits on a Grand Jury would be selected to be on the 'general' jury though. In fact, usually the identities of the Grand Jury are a well kept secret, unlike the 'general' jury.