Forum menu
And there you have it, it's open to interpretation. That's why I find Law so interesting, especially criminal law. The nuances of the English language determine how something is defined. Statute law tries to be as prescriptive as possible but it is still open to interpretation. For example until 1994 a man could not rape his wife as it just wasn't recognized in law. Judicial precedent changed that.
If you're interested (and a little bit sad like me)!! See also the two definitions and tests of recklessness (Cunningham & Caldwell) and the test for criminal liability - actus reus (criminal act) & mens rea (criminal mind). Both have to be satisfied for a crime to have been committed.
In relation to recklessness it all used to be between subjective and objective recklessness. The concept of objective recklessness being R V CALDWELL (1982) however this has now gone and is restored to it's former position of R v G & R (2003). This case was 2 children who set fire to some burning newspapers in the rear of a shop yard whilst camping out. The children put the burning papers under a wheelie bin and left them expecting the small fire to burn out. It didn't and caused a million pounds worth of damage.
Under R V Caldwell the children would've been convicted on the basis that the risk of the fire would have been obvious to any reasonable bystander, however their convictions were quashed by House of Lords who reinstated the general subjective element.
How interesting the law changes then returns to it's original. There is some case law relating to assaults that still stands now and it is from 1669 and another from 1853!!!
Ha ha, yeah. Law is constantly being tested and (IMO) is a system we should be proud of. With political & economic systems failing. Law stands up.
Always questioned, often misunderstood, rarely outdone! 🙂
Criminal law I find very interesting. Look at things like the special defences for murder and stuff like that. Oh and proving attempt murder is a nightmare! For murder you only have to prove intent to cause serious GBH OR death, to prove attempt murder you have to prove intent to kill!!!! Hence why they often struggle and get charged with s18 GBH wounding with intent instead of attempt murder as S18 still carries a life sentence.
If someone is sentenced to life imprisonment
Except that except in a very few cases (eg Myra Hindley) people aren't sentenced to life imprisonment. I thought you said you knew the difference between sentence and imprisonment?
Aracer are you just being an argumentative t***!!! I was just saying life doesn't automatically mean life!!! I know some people get life. I'm quite well aware of the law thanks.
They got life sentences. The Judge has set the 'tariff' at 19 yrs. Thats 19yrs before they can be considered for parole.
Whether that is enough, is open to debate, its a life sentence all the same. Know where you are coming from though, it rarely means a lifetime incarcerated. 🙂
Exactly there is no way they will die in prison it just won't happen (I know it can but it's so exceptionally rare). But that's exactly what I was saying JacksonPollock.