Slashdot Mirror

Reasonable force applies to everybody, police included. It's a test for the jury: in the circumstances, do you think that the defendant's reaction was in proportion to the accused's attack? If the test "minimal force" was used, I think you'd see an equal amount of problematic decisions. "Minimal force" requires the defendant to work out what minimal force is, and we would all have differing opinions in the circumstances.

It's not so much the test that is at fault, it's the reasoning that goes on behind it, the cultural conditions that determine whether or not the police get treated in a special way. I give you the Rodney King case in the USA as an example: clearly, the video showed a man being cruelly and unfairly beaten. What wasn't shown was his resistance to arrest prior to the beating; even given this, the bias towards the police's POV was clearly shown in the transcripts of the case. What goes on, too, is the number of medical retirements of officers who have been accused of crimes. Then there's the speicial pleading from the police that goes on.

In Britain (or England and Wales at any rate as Scotland has a seperate legal code) there is an offence of wasting police time which carries a maximum penalty of 6 months in prison or a hefty fine. I'm not sure how easy it would be to prove though. Surely anyone who abuses this system can just say "They seemed suspicious to me". How could you distinguish between abuse and an honest mistake?

IANAL but,:-

"
Wasting police time - section 5(2) Criminal Law Act 1967

(Archbold 28-224)

The offence of wasting police time is committed when a person

        * causes any wasteful employment of the police by
        * knowingly making to any person a false report orally or in writing tending to:
        * show that an offence has been committed; or,
        * give rise to apprehension for the safety of any persons or property; or,
        * show that he has information material to any police inquiry.

It is a summary only offence carrying a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment and/or a level 4 fine.

The public interest will favour a prosecution in any one of the following circumstances:-

        * police resources have been diverted for a significant period (for example 10 hours);
        * a substantial cost is incurred, for example a police helicopter is used or an expensive scientific examination undertaken;
        * when the false report is particularly grave or malicious;
        * considerable distress is caused to a person by the report;
        * the accused knew, or ought to have known, that police resources were under particular strain or diverted from a particularly serious inquiry;
        * there is significant premeditation in the making of the report;
        * the report is persisted in, particularly in the face of challenge.

"

Just in case you were wondering a level 4 fine is £2500.

That's from the Crown Prosecution Service's website.

• Balfour Beatty were charged with Corporate Manslaughter over Hatfield. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4225877.stm
• Barrow Council was charged with Corporate Manslaughter after a legionaires disease incident http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/cumbria/4473573 .stm
• And I presume the law is on the statute books just for decoration. http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/section5/chapter_b.htm l

ian

You're right - you can charge someone then a judge can deny bail and remand in custody - but that isn't germane to the point of the planned legislation.

Currently, to be charged there needs to be sufficient evidence in the hands of the Police that they can go to the Crown Prosecution Service who then decide whether it's going to Court or not.

Under the planned, and thankfully failed, legislation (and the amendment which sadly was passed - at least in the Commons, it's still got to get past the Lords), the Police can hold you WITHOUT charge and WITHOUT evidence.

It's an attempt to get a fishing licence. 'Your face looks funny so we'll throw you in a Remand cell and then go looking for a reason why'.

There's a word for what El Presidente Blair and Josif Vissionarovich Clarke are trying to to, and that word is Internment. It's been tried before on these shores, and proved to be a hugely fertile recruiting ground for militants.

The illusion that this is in any way similar to any form of proper Judicial process is one that El Presidente and his morons^Wminions^WMinisters have tried hard to produce - and, thankfully, failed. Unfortunately, they have managed to convince the tabloid-reading population. The Sun, that revered repository of unbiased information, yesterday referred to MPs who voted against the bill as 'Traitors'.

This was - and is - a blatant attack on civil liberties, using terrorism as the bogeyman the same way that Communism was used by McCarthy. A raghead under every bed?

So please - don't be fooled. This has nothing to do with charging someone then remanding them in custody, and EVERYTHING to do with moving towards creating political prisoners and internment. It's not the same, and it certainly isn't Justice.

Allowing a dog to roam free and unrestrained has obvious and predictable consequences. Canine behaviour is well understood.

However, a computer is a different (pardon the pun) beast. Do you know what your computer is doing with its network connection at all times? I doubt it, even if you have your machine well-firewalled and monitored. My personal machine is tied-down, virus and spyware free and regularly audited by myself, but I could not claim to know what it was doing at all times unless I sat there watching end-points and connections continuously. Expecting your average Joe User to do that is pure fantasy.

In law, there is ample precedent for treating actions which result from innocent oversight or accident differently to those that result from deliberate actions. Murder versus Manslaughter, for example. Although the offences stem from the untimely death of an individual, they are different offences carrying different penalties. Another more analagous example would be (in UK legal parlance) the offences of motor manslaughter and causing death by dangerous driving (link). Again, although the result is the same (someone dies) the penalties, burden of proof and offence is different.

If the RIAA were alledging that the mother in TFA was "allowing infringement of copyright", it'd be a different story. However, they're not. What they are alledging is that she was infringing copyright; an act with necessarily involves wilful action.

That's a political position, and one so noisily promoted in the US (by the Heiritage Foundation and its friends) that it's become mainstream. But it's not fundamental to society.

In Europe, property rights are not generally considered to be more important than other rights. Europe, unlike the US, had a feudal era. Until about 200 years ago, most real estate was owned by a few powerful barons, who leased it out. It took some bloody revolutions to end that.

That history matters, and is reflected in the legal system. Trespass and squatting are minor offenses, and in many circumstances legal, in England, for example.

And copyright is not unquestionably "property". Legally, it's a statutory monopoly. As a US judge said in the MGM vs. Grokster case:

• Let me say what I think your problem is. You can use these harsh terms, but you are dealing with something new, and the question is, does the statutory monopoly that Congress has given you reach out to that something new. And that's a very debatable question. You don't solve it by calling it 'theft.' You have to show why this court should extend a statutory monopoly to cover the new thing. That's your problem. Address that if you would. And curtail the use of abusive language.

You can't jail a corporation; indeed, the worst you can do is revoke its charter (which doesn't happen very often). Basically most corporate punishment comes down to fines, which, if not hefty enough, don't deter future misconduct.

Actually you can jail a corporation - well, you can jail the CEO or whoever has overall responsibility. This is a bit iffy as you have to link a person, or persons, to the corporation which is not always going to be easy. This is a relatively new law in the UK AFAIK.
Have a look at this summary"

Why do people think that it is difficult to get a conviction? The sources that I can find suggest that conviction rates are about 97/98% in magistrates courts and around 90% in crown courts. That doesn't really suggest that there are problems getting convictions.ref 1 ref 2