News1 min ago
Collective Resposibility
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://
http://
Answers
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
^^ 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 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.
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.
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.
No pussy-footing in Qaraqosh;
http://
http://
// 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://
so whadda we debating ?
AB re writes criminal law - oops they dont need to re write it as the law is as wanted
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://
so whadda we debating ?
AB re writes criminal law - oops they dont need to re write it as the law is as wanted
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.
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.
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.