Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

Was Fred West "innocent"?

All matters involving criminal law

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby Maz JP » Wed Feb 07, 2018 4:49 pm

atticus wrote:In the meantime, has shooter remembered what it was that led him to say that about "beyond reasonable doubt"? We may be able to clear up any confusion if he can.


We are greatly discouraged from using the phrase in Court.

Currently, we are advised that the a la mode wording is "satisfied so that we are sure".

I don't know if this advances the discussion one whit.
Maz JP
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:01 pm

Maz JP wrote:
atticus wrote:In the meantime, has shooter remembered what it was that led him to say that about "beyond reasonable doubt"? We may be able to clear up any confusion if he can.


We are greatly discouraged from using the phrase in Court.

Currently, we are advised that the a la mode wording is "satisfied so that we are sure".

I don't know if this advances the discussion one whit.


I seem to remember that those were the words used in the case (if it was actually a case) that I read.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:22 pm

the two phrases appear to me to mean much the same thing.
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20679
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:36 pm

atticus wrote:the two phrases appear to me to mean much the same thing.

It is perhaps something where the distinction was for some reason relevant in the context.
Unless somebody can find the actual case record then I think the point is moot, and not entirely on topic. Shall we move on, or have we resolved the question already?
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby theycantdothat » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:47 pm

atticus wrote:the two phrases appear to me to mean much the same thing.


Depends who they are addressed to and how they are taken.

In any case resting on identity, say, I might consider it possible the crime was committed by a twin separated at birth. In that case I can never be satisfied so as to be sure, whilst I might be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The diference between the two is the application of common sense.
theycantdothat
 
Posts: 1237
Joined: Fri Nov 02, 2012 7:36 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby atticus » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:54 pm

In the identical twin scenario*, if you cannot be satisfied so as to be sure you must have a reasonable doubt.

EDIT TO ADD - *indeed in any scenario. If you are not sure, why are you not sure? What is the doubt? You then get into the question whether the doubt is "reasonable".
User avatar
atticus
 
Posts: 20679
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 2:27 pm
Location: E&W

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby Hairyloon » Wed Feb 07, 2018 5:56 pm

theycantdothat wrote:The diference between the two is the application of common sense.


I have lost count of the number of times we have here observed the general scarcity of common sense...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 10574
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby Maz JP » Wed Feb 07, 2018 6:46 pm

atticus wrote:In the identical twin scenario*, if you cannot be satisfied so as to be sure you must have a reasonable doubt.

EDIT TO ADD - *indeed in any scenario. If you are not sure, why are you not sure? What is the doubt? You then get into the question whether the doubt is "reasonable".


Personally, I think the difference between the two phrases is primarily that one is more active than the other. "We are sure" says it as it is in a simple and definitive way ; whereas 'beyond reasonable doubt' is actually a far more passive phrase, and one that is more complex, since is actually shorthand for 'beyond the reasonable doubt of the average man or woman".

Let's not forget that there are people out there who doubt that planes flew into the WTC on 9/11 (the No Planes theory : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories). They no doubt think their doubt is reasonable; I am satisfied so that I am sure that it is not.
Maz JP
 
Posts: 351
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 2:51 pm

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby dls » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:02 pm

silly conversation

guilty and innocent each have two meanings, a legal one and a general one.

Guilt and innocenec in law depends generally on the presence or absence of a conviction.

In a general discussion, thet are not s dependent.

Playing at moving between the two meanings helps nobody.

It is proper to assume that ina law discussion forum, that the legal term applies.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 12529
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

Re: Was Fred West "innocent"?

Postby shootist » Wed Feb 07, 2018 9:33 pm

atticus wrote:the two phrases appear to me to mean much the same thing.


Lawyers often make a great deal of money proving that two phrases that appear to mean much the same thing in fact mean entirely opposite things.
“Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." MLK.
User avatar
shootist
 
Posts: 3828
Joined: Sat Aug 10, 2013 9:40 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Crime

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron