|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Justice (for the 96)
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Justice looks like the truth, recompense, and reconciliation, and yes like grace. It doesn't look like vengeance, which is nearly always nasty in human hands (or feet).
A big Yes to truth; the truth about what happened is what the families and all who were there are entitled to. And shame on those who have lied and concealed the truth; by their actions they have forfeited any sympathy.
Reconciliation is for those involved to offer or reject. No entitlement to that.
You're right that vengeance is nasty. The fact that people suffered and died does not mean that there has to be someone to blame, someone to punish. It makes a more dramatically satisfying story if there's a villain, but real life doesn't always make a good story. Those who won't be satisfied until a culprit has been found and punished have discarded justice in their hunger for retribution.
Recompense ? I have trouble with that one. Who should pay recompense and how much and why ?
There is no necessary proportionality between the wrongness of what any individual did and the scale of the consequences to which their action contributed.
Nobody intended what happened. Not the fans pushing and shoving at the back of the crowd unaware that they were killing those at the front. Not the police who opened a gate thinking that this would get fans in to the match quicker and thus reduce the frustration. Not the people trying to run a successful football club in an old stadium. Not the architect who originally designed the stadium with other situations in mind.
Better to forget recompense, forget vengeance, forget the "us & them" element which seems to have crept in to far too many of the above posts.
Better to try to develop a no-blame culture where the truth comes out straight away and the focus is where it should be - on rapidly learning how to do things better so that it doesn't happen again.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
The findings confirm one thing that many have known for years - the Police (up to possibly the late 1990's) were structurally corrupt and will do anything to secure a conviction or deflect blame. The only real revelation about the Police has been the scale and cynicism of this latest cover up. It is still possibly today although less likely as video recordings from personal cameras can provide independent evidence.
I'd never speak to a Police Officer, if stopped, unless my mobile phone was running.
There are of course many excellent officers who perform their duties with humanity and humour. but, they remain I guess - and from what I see -in the minority. It is sobering to think that the advent of Street Pastors has reduced crime in town centres partly because the Police are not winding up people to provoke fights - there are now impartial witnesses.
Talk of class warfare is not wide of the mark. Thatcher had a particular thing about Liverpool - just like the Doctors are finding hat the Tories have a thing about the NHS. They just don't like it. They all carry a stone a long time before they throw it - they have long memories of past defeats and of real or perceived slights.
The roll call against SYP is a long pne - Orgreave, Rotherham, Hillsborough. The 1980's were seemingly a time for Police to get off on a bit of violence in controlling mobs - I've even Police Officers boast of their antics n the Miners Strike, which, if perpetrated by members of the public would amount to GBH.
One thing must be done immediately: change the law to stop Police taking retirement to avoid prosecution. It would even be politic to revamp the whole service and bring retirement and pension provision in line with other public servants.
The final step must be to bring in a new leadership team for SYP who have no connection with the area, possibly even to disband SYP and start again. Lastly institute a ban on all employees of the state from being involved with masonic and associated bodies - there was/is a significant element of that in SYP, both to gain promotion and to close ranks.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by Raptor Eye:
Justice looks like the truth, recompense, and reconciliation, and yes like grace. It doesn't look like vengeance, which is nearly always nasty in human hands (or feet).
Recompense ? I have trouble with that one. Who should pay recompense and how much and why ?
Better to forget recompense, forget vengeance, forget the "us & them" element which seems to have crept in to far too many of the above posts.
Generally, it seems that those seeking recompense, or compensation, use those phrases as a cover for seeking to punish. It's a standard principle that, subject to some exceptions in defamation and deliberate assault*, damages are to compensate and not to punish.
*I am speaking of here and probably Canada, NZ and England. Can't speak of elsewhere.
[ 29. April 2016, 07:55: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Again, I plead ignorance, but did the police admissions come out at the MIP? I understood that they only came at this panel due to dogged interrogation by the barristers of those in charge under oath.
This is part of the current scandal, resulting in the suspensions at SYP. At the time of the HIP the Chief Constable accepted the findings and apologised on behalf of SYP. Their barristers then headed into the ensuing inquest and dredged up the same old cliches about the fans being to blame/drunk/late etc. This was one of the reasons the inquest took so long - even though the facts about police behaviour on the day and the cover up were already in the public domain and had already been officially accepted (but not in a court of law) by SYP. There's plenty of claims that this is normal legal process - and it may be. But it looks very much like SYP wanted to say the right things in public but seek some sort of official exoneration in the legal process to somewhat save face. Sick really.
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
My implication that Heysel reporting was flawed was based on my memory of having the impression at the time that the mass of Liverpool fans were involved. Reading about it now, it was clearly only a small number of them, and also a small number of the Juventus fans. The group we saw would have not been part of it at all, but we couldn't really process that, because of the sentences of the type "the Liverpool fans stormed towards the Juventus fans".
This style of reporting was probably not the result of the deliberate lying that has been a marker of the shocking Hillsborough misrepresentations, but it was there.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Nobody intended what happened. Not the fans pushing and shoving at the back of the crowd unaware that they were killing those at the front. Not the police who opened a gate thinking that this would get fans in to the match quicker and thus reduce the frustration. Not the people trying to run a successful football club in an old stadium. Not the architect who originally designed the stadium with other situations in mind.
Better to forget recompense, forget vengeance, forget the "us & them" element which seems to have crept in to far too many of the above posts.
Better to try to develop a no-blame culture where the truth comes out straight away and the focus is where it should be - on rapidly learning how to do things better so that it doesn't happen again.
The person who causes an accident on the motorway killing a bus full of pensioners because they were distracted by their phone did not "intend" to kill them. That doesn't mean that somehow they are not responsible for their deaths.
Justice does not just mean everyone holding hands and saying "oh well, that was just an accident which killed 250 miners - never mind, could have happened to anyone, let's just carry on as if it never happened."
If a mine-owner should be considered responsible for an explosion caused by the rush to profit leading to unsafe practices and the motorway driver deemed to be responsible for the accident due to his negligence, then why shouldn't senior police officers (and others) be held to account for actions which were directly responsible for deaths, for the apparent actions which downplayed the seriousness of the incident leading to a lack of ambulances, and for the continued lies about their part in the drama?
Why is it that when those in senior positions in the military, civil authorities, multinationals and others cause deaths by their negligence we are all supposed to "develop a no-blame culture" but when anyone else does something which doesn't even approach the seriousness the book is thrown at them?
Can it be that there is one rule for an armed policeman on the street shooting an involved bystander and another for the man who says something in public you'd hear old ladies say on almost any bus-stop?
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, exactly. The whole point of the category of manslaughter is that it's non-intentional. The idea of getting rid of it in the spirit of no-blame, is inane. It would mean that irresponsible drivers, builders, engineers, and in this case, policemen, would get off scot-free, if people are killed.
Then you would start to get the growth of revenge ideas, as the law would no longer be dealing with such killings.
At least, in this case, the families have some sense that the law recognizes their grievances; to get rid of that would actually be dangerous.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
We keep talking glibly of 'holding people to account'. I have never been very clear as to what is meant by this. A criminal trial? What outcome do we have in mind? Prison? A fine? or just public obloquy - which is what these people are already experiencing. What punishment could be greater than living with the knowledge of the deaths they have been responsible for?
And who is to be held responsible? Those who gave the orders that led to the deaths? Those rank and file officers who carried them out? Those who spread misinformation about what happened? Those who gleefully passed it on, perhaps believing it?
Where is the raking over of the coals to stop? If not a criminal trial, the outcome of which must be uncertain, are we to have an interminable series of civil proceedings, or an equally interminable public enquiry? What could this add to what we know already, and what can it produce, beyond fees for the lawyers involved (and I speak as a retired lawyer).
Those involved are already standing in the pillory. We know who they are. Yes, by all means reorganise the policing in South Yorkshire - but not as a matter of class vengeance on Mrs T.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Eirenist wrote: quote:
Where is the raking over of the coals to stop? If not a criminal trial, the outcome of which must be uncertain, are we to have an interminable series of civil proceedings, or an equally interminable public enquiry? What could this add to what we know already, and what can it produce, beyond fees for the lawyers involved (and I speak as a retired lawyer).
Well, it's only because the families persisted, in the teeth of all the denigration of the fans, that the facts have come out. To call this 'raking over' suggests that the families should have quit earlier; as the Spectator argued, they were 'wallowing in victimhood'.
I doubt if there will be endless public enquiries - what for? Presumably, the CPS will decide on any prosecutions.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
My implication that Heysel reporting was flawed was based on my memory of having the impression at the time that the mass of Liverpool fans were involved. Reading about it now, it was clearly only a small number of them, and also a small number of the Juventus fans. The group we saw would have not been part of it at all, but we couldn't really process that, because of the sentences of the type "the Liverpool fans stormed towards the Juventus fans".
This style of reporting was probably not the result of the deliberate lying that has been a marker of the shocking Hillsborough misrepresentations, but it was there.
I was too young to know anything about Heysel, but reading about it now puts some context to the Hillsborough disaster.
It isn't too much of a stretch to think that the police and authorities believed that football was a "a slum sport played in slum stadiums increasingly watched by slum people", that Liverpool fans deliberately crushed a few of their own and that they deserved to suffer for being louts rather than treated by paramedics.
Of course the police should have been able to see beyond the blindness of their prejudice. But maybe the lines of command jumped to a conclusion and were blind to the truth of what was playing out in front of them.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Some of those thoughts have also come to myself mr cheesy.
I've only ever had a passing interest in football, but was a silent Liverpool follower in school days when it was the done thing to support a particular club.
I well recall the morning after Heysel and saying to a work colleague about being ashamed. Now that could have been down to the reporting of it, more likely it was a reflection of just how low many of us felt football had sunk generally.
The atmosphere and feel of English football is totally different now from what it was then. Sad indeed that it took something like Hillsbourgh for that to have happened.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The whole point of the category of manslaughter is that it's non-intentional. The idea of getting rid of it in the spirit of no-blame, is inane. It would mean that irresponsible drivers, builders, engineers, and in this case, policemen, would get off scot-free, if people are killed.
Manslaughter is a useful concept. If I've understood it right, it refers to cases of unpremeditated but deliberate killing, or causing death through deliberately committing a lesser offence.
You cannot commit manslaughter by accident or stupidity. It involves criminal intent, but a lesser intent than murder. It may be a temporary intent resulting from provocation by the actions of the other party, or intent to commit a lesser crime (beat him up, scare him with a gun, whatever) and thus subject the victim to a risk of death.
So a driver who deliberately flouts the law on mobile phone use whilst driving, or builders who cut costs by not meeting fire safety standards may well be guilty of this.
But when an unforeseen disaster-event occurs, what is important is to rapidly understand what happened and why, to prevent similar events happening again. After Hillsborough, there were football matches in old stadiums the following Saturday. After the Kings Cross fire, other tube stations continued to operate.
Where there is no apparent criminal intent, hunting for scapegoats whose crime is only to have failed to foresee can get in the way of that important task of prevention through understanding.
If everyone had perfect foresight, there would be no accidents.
Preoccupation with finding someone to punish for what are essentially accidents increases the pressure for the culture of cover-up which nobody wants.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Agree there Russ, particularly with your last sentence.
Duckenworth has repeatedly expressed deep remorse for the action he took. Locking him up for the rest of his days won't achieve anything.
Following the exit gate being opened to avoid a crush outside, there were a number of blunders made that afternoon. Poor communication and the holding back of medics for vital moments being the worst. The cover up that followed is a somewhat different matter to my mind.
Hillsbourgh has already resulted in football matches being changed for the better, it's now looking set to do the same for the South Yorkshire constabulary.
[ 30. April 2016, 08:47: Message edited by: rolyn ]
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
deano
princess
# 12063
|
Posted
The jury's decision in this case resembles that of the OJ Simpson trial.
--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot
Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
The jury's decision in this case resembles that of the OJ Simpson trial.
In that the families of the victims have finally had an official verdict on what actually happened (which is the purpose of an inquest)? That families who have lived for decades with conflicting reports of what happened, of friends who were there saying something that the police accounts would say was incorrect now knowing that it was the police accounts that were incorrect, deliberately so? Families now able to move on without being forever stuck in the limbo of not having an official account that truthfully stated the facts of the event.
Yes, very much like the OJ Simpson case. Except, there has been no criminal conviction and no one is facing any prison time.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
You cannot commit manslaughter by accident or stupidity.... So a driver who deliberately flouts the law on mobile phone use whilst driving, or builders who cut costs by not meeting fire safety standards may well be guilty of this.
This seems like a contradiction. Isn't using one's mobile phone stupidity? It certainly isn't criminal intent. If I'm such an idiotic driver that I don't notice a zebra crossing and mow someone down I have no intent, but my lack of insight has led to a death and I may well be guilty of manslaughter.
I think we have to conclude that there are some forms of stupidity which are criminal.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
Duckenworth has repeatedly expressed deep remorse for the action he took. Locking him up for the rest of his days won't achieve anything.
Yes it will. It will allow him to say 'Yes I am guilty, and I have served my time.'
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
scapegoats whose crime is only to have failed to foresee
Let's look at what the jury were actually asked to rule on ...
quote:
Unlawful killing: Are you satisfied, so that you are sure, that those who died in the disaster were unlawfully killed? To answer 'yes' to this question, the jurors must be sure of the following:
Firstly, that Ch Supt David Duckenfield owed a duty of care to the 96 who died
Secondly, that he was in breach of that duty of care
Thirdly, that the breach of Mr Duckenfield's duty of care caused the deaths
Finally, the jury must be sure that the breach which caused the deaths amounted to "gross negligence."
That's quite a bit stronger than just 'failed to foresee'.
What people are forgetting is that the disaster didn't just happen instantaneously. The police should have been watching the crowd movement as it happened via CCTV. That they didn't realise what was unfolding suggests either they weren't watching their screens or they didn't care.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
I think we have to conclude that there are some forms of stupidity which are criminal.
Yes I suppose we have -- driving without due care and attention, reckless driving, and then dangerous driving.
But then you might expect police ought to know about such matters.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
So a driver who deliberately flouts the law on mobile phone use whilst driving, or builders who cut costs by not meeting fire safety standards may well be guilty of this.
You are ignoring history. The structural problems with how the stadium laid out were well known, and it was recognized that these caused problems with crowd control at certain hot spots. The semi final had been played in the same venue in each of the previous years.
You are also ignoring the deliberate lies and distortions that sought to shift the blame elsewhere.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
]Originally posted by deano:
The jury's decision in this case resembles that of the OJ Simpson trial. [/QUOTE]
Wn interesting comparison... which of the conclusions do you think were mistaken? Was it question 7 you had in mind? Or something else?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's quite likely also that there was a police culture of save your own skin, blame somebody else, and close ranks. It's possible that there still is, and in other institutions also.
In the US we call this the Blue Wall. Cops are forbidden from admitting one of their members might be criminally at fault for anything. Cops reaching over or around the wall face repercussions.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are also ignoring the deliberate lies and distortions that sought to shift the blame elsewhere.
That's after the event, and I've said I've no sympathy with it and the families are entitled to the truth.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:
If I'm such an idiotic driver that I don't notice a zebra crossing and mow someone down I have no intent, but my lack of insight has led to a death and I may well be guilty of manslaughter.
I think we have to conclude that there are some forms of stupidity which are criminal.
Guilty of "Driving without due care and attention", but not I think manslaughter. "Manslaughter" does not mean "causing death by accident". It's a specific legal term for situations where intent is diminished but still present.
I defer to Eliab on matters legal, but my understanding is that English law works on the basis that everything is permitted that is not explicitly prohibited.
So society makes safety laws to prohibit actions that are unacceptably dangerous to others. Particularly covering use of dangerous things like cars, poisons, fires, weapons or explosives. And most of us don't know the detail of these laws because acting sensibly and responsibly is almost always enough to fulfil one's duty under these laws.
If you're doing something that's stupidly risky to others but isn't covered by one of these laws, the police may well have discretion to "move you on" or stop you from doing it, without formally charging you, but that wouldn't mean that what you were doing was a criminal act.
ricardus quoted "duty of care", which is something else. That seems to me something like a consumer right. If you pay a taxi driver to take you to the airport and he drives in a dangerous manner, then as well as committing an offence of "dangerous driving" against society at large, he has wronged you by choosing to set aside his duty to offer your person the level of care that is implicit in your contract with him.
But I could be wrong...
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
Russ, you seem to be confusing "death by accident" and "death in a car accident". Different usages of the same word.
I can't speak of elsewhere, but history is that juries were very reluctant to convict of manslaughter in cases arising from collisions, whether car/car or car/pedestrian. A whole string of special offences were then created, such as dangerous driving causing death, to overcome this reluctance. But should there be some fatal occurrence in a factory or mine, it is quite possible for a jury to convict of manslaughter if they were satisfied that there had been an act of gross negligence by a mine owner or factory operator. Perhaps some molten metal is to be poured into a mould; an owner who did not provide proper shielding could well be convicted of manslaughter. The same applies to a mine owner who decides that the regular provision of roof supports is overly generous and should be halved to reduce costs. OTOH, the mine owner would not be liable if, totally unknown and undiscoverable, the supports had been eaten away internally by termites and totally lacked strength. That would be an accident.
Take another example. I want a new factory built. I have no experience as an architect, engineer or builder, so I engage all 3 for the work to be carried out. I also engage a certifier to let me know if the work has been carried out in accordance with the plans and any relevant statutory requirements. Unknown to me, the certifier is corrupt and a crook; he wrongly certifies the building, which collapses with great loss of life. I would not be liable there, but those who breached their obligations may well be.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tukai
Shipmate
# 12960
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Of course, there are issues such as the prosecution failing to pass on evidence that might help the defense, police not following all valid lines of enquiry that might have indicated someone else was guilty etc. But, those are going to be the same whether you have a jury trial or a different sort of trial.
We have a case of this in Australia, which also raises many other issues about "what is justice? " : the murder of ACT police Commissioner, Winchester in 1989, for which David Eastman tried in 1994, found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
After numerous appeals , sufficient doubts about the fairness of the trial were raised that the there was a judicial inquiry in 2014 that found that his trial was not fair in several of the senses raised by Alan Creswell. The inquiry quashed the conviction, but did not unequivocally find Eastman not guilty. In fact the judge left open the possibility of a retrial! By that time Eastman had already served nearly 20 years in prison, which in practice means he was about to be released anyway, albeit as a broken and weakened man.
So what use could a retrial possibly serve? How could it be justice? Even if he is found guilty he would be free to walk out the door almost the next day, having already done his time in gaol for the very same "offence". And that's even disregarding the many difficulties with the original evidence, notably the forensic evidence which has been completely discredited and/or lost, and of the unreliable memory of any surviving witnesses of events more than 20 years ago, and of the impossibility of finding a local jury who have not heard of the case, which has been continually in the news, not least in the past 5 years.
Many commentators believe that the main reason why the Prosecutors office has continued to push for a retrial which is now to proceed is to cover up the incompetence of the original police investigation and prosecution, and perhaps to delay those offical bodies being sued for wrongful imprisonment - shades of Hillsborough in the OP.
--------------------
A government that panders to the worst instincts of its people degrades the whole country for years to come.
Posts: 594 | From: Oz | Registered: Sep 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Russ, if I may go back to what you originally said on this, quote:
Manslaughter is a useful concept. If I've understood it right, it refers to cases of unpremeditated but deliberate killing, or causing death through deliberately committing a lesser offence.
You cannot commit manslaughter by accident or stupidity. It involves criminal intent, but a lesser intent than murder. It may be a temporary intent resulting from provocation by the actions of the other party, or intent to commit a lesser crime (beat him up, scare him with a gun, whatever) and thus subject the victim to a risk of death. ...
I regret to say that is wrong. So much that follows, also is.
Deliberate killing, whether planned or unplanned, is murder. So, in England and Wales, is intending to cause somebody grievous bodily harm, but they then die.
Manslaughter is an anomalous offence. This has been recognised by lawyers for many years. The late J.W.C. Turner, father-in-law of Robert Runcie was outspoken on the subject.
Normally, to commit a criminal offence, you have to have intention. However, with manslaughter, you can't have an intention, because if you did, it would be murder. Manslaughter is therefore killing somebody negligently. You can indeed "commit manslaughter by accident or stupidity". But that poses the question, how negligent do you have to be for that negligence to be criminal.
You can't steal, embezzle or defraud someone negligently. If you injure someone negligently and they don't die, that's not usually a criminal offence. They sue you. You have to compensate them.
But if they die, that becomes different.
Gee D is right that the reason why offences were introduced specifically relating to causing death by dangerous driving was because in the 1920s and 1930s it was difficult to persuade juries to convict people of manslaughter, when it seemed so random whether a collision had occurred or been averted, or whether someone was injured or killed.
It is difficult to be precise about where the boundary falls between just negligence and manslaughter negligence.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
There is of course the finding of manslaughter where the accused used excessive force in response to extreme provocation.
Other bases for murder in NSW include commission of an act with reckless indifference to human life (rarely relied upon, because of the difficulty in drawing a line between that and negligence) an act done in the course of committing an offence punishable by a sentence of life or for 25 years or more. It's near impossible to see how what happened at Hillsborough comes within any of these.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are also ignoring the deliberate lies and distortions that sought to shift the blame elsewhere.
That's after the event, and I've said I've no sympathy with it and the families are entitled to the truth.
It does though always come back to What is the Truth .
As I recall it was only 48hrs or less that the 'gate broken down by fans' account was replaced with the true account -- that being a deliberate order was given to open the gate.
This truth we keep harping on leaves me thinking something else is going on. I mean did this thing go right to the very top? A conspiracy dressed as a cock up? If it did then rest assured, partial truth is all we'll ever get.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
You are also ignoring the deliberate lies and distortions that sought to shift the blame elsewhere.
That's after the event, and I've said I've no sympathy with it and the families are entitled to the truth.
As leo alludes to above, some of that constituted criminal offenses in itself.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
"Manslaughter" does not mean "causing death by accident". It's a specific legal term for situations where intent is diminished but still present.
Manslaughter can include an intention to kill where there is diminished responsibility, 'abnormality of mind', loss of control, or a suicide pact. They are all what is called 'voluntary manslaughter'.
'Involuntary manslaughter' (where there is no intention to kill) includes manslaughter by gross negligence and manslaughter by unlawful and dangerous act.
Because juries proved very reluctant to convict motorists of manslaughter, the offence of causing death by reckless driving was introduced, and subsequently changed to the more objective test of causing death by dangerous driving. It is occasionally referred to as 'motor manslaughter'.
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Come to that, actual intention to kill is not required for a murder conviction, in some cases - via the principle of "joint enterprise" - nor is actually having killed someone. I don't know if joint enterprise can be applied to manslaughter by gross negligence.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
Russ, you can commit manslaughter by negligence. A Guardian article last week fully outlined the extent of SYP’s failure to prepare adequately at Hillsborough. (I won’t link because it’s quite long but you can find it easily enough with Google.)
The police commander was changed a mere two weeks prior to the match, despite the officer who had been in charge for the identical match the previous year, and who knew the ground well, having done a basically good job that time round. Duckenfield, who was brought in to replace him, had not been to Hillsborough in ten years and never once walked around the ground prior to the day. He was unaware of where the turnstiles were and how they worked. He also didn’t know about the congestion problem that frequently happened at the Leppings Lane end and had no plan in place to deal with it. Had he known, it’s inconceivable that he would have ordered the gate opened without closing the tunnel. During the build-up to the match he stayed in his control room from beginning to end and at no point went out to find out where the people were building up. The result of all this is that 96 people died. To my mind this is unquestionably negligence on a criminal scale.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
Guilty of "Driving without due care and attention", but not I think manslaughter. "Manslaughter" does not mean "causing death by accident". It's a specific legal term for situations where intent is diminished but still present.
I think you are missing that there is a distinction between voluntary and involuntary manslaughter. You have been talking about voluntary and granted negligence doesn't fit that definition. However it is specifically mentioned under involuntary manslaughter.
[ 02. May 2016, 11:07: Message edited by: mdijon ]
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
The change of command at short notice is a detail the media have been teasing the public with for some time. Reporters and analylists usually say no explanation was ever given by SYP as to why this was done. Always hinting at something a bit smelly.
The speed at which the cover up swung into action certainly leaves one guessing. And indeed had such efficiency been employed in the moments following the initial blunder then there is little doubt the death toll would have been significantly reduced.
The image of the Liverpool goalkeeper's futile attempts to pull down the steel cage has stuck in my mind. How is it he was aware of the seriousness of what was happening when a large number of police apparently weren't?
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
Russ, you can commit manslaughter by negligence. A Guardian article last week fully outlined the extent of SYP’s failure to prepare adequately at Hillsborough. (I won’t link because it’s quite long but you can find it easily enough with Google.)
The police commander was changed a mere two weeks prior to the match, despite the officer who had been in charge for the identical match the previous year, and who knew the ground well, having done a basically good job that time round. Duckenfield, who was brought in to replace him, had not been to Hillsborough in ten years and never once walked around the ground prior to the day. He was unaware of where the turnstiles were and how they worked. He also didn’t know about the congestion problem that frequently happened at the Leppings Lane end and had no plan in place to deal with it. Had he known, it’s inconceivable that he would have ordered the gate opened without closing the tunnel. During the build-up to the match he stayed in his control room from beginning to end and at no point went out to find out where the people were building up. The result of all this is that 96 people died. To my mind this is unquestionably negligence on a criminal scale.
Put like that, though, immediately poses the question of who the accused should be. Institutions of all kinds and in every country have a long tradition of putting the wrong person in charge and then throwing the book at them when things go wrong. Described that way, it looks more like corporate than individual manslaughter. If that is what you are hinting at, I would agree with you, but it's unlikely a trial could be anything other than a waste of time since it would have to proceed on the law as it was in 1989, not as it has been since 2007.
Also, what's the point of imposing a huge fine on a police force, which is paid for by the taxpayer? The money just goes round in circles.
And if SYP were prosecuted, that opens the other unmentionable. It would look deeply unjust if Sheffield Wednesday isn't in the dock as well.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
D-field was unaware of where the turnstiles were and how they worked. He also didn’t know about the congestion problem that frequently happened at the Leppings Lane end and had no plan in place to deal with it. Had he known, it’s inconceivable that he would have ordered the gate opened without closing the tunnel.
..... and given this, also inconceivable that someone in that position would have opened that gate without first taking a minute to send an officer into tunnel to see where the flood of people would end up.
Had there been crush victims outside the ground it would back the panicked decision story. To my knowledge there weren't, meaning there was time to make a decision based on knowing what the consequences of what such an action would be.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
On whether I think there is institutional responsibility - yes and no, to my mind. I think Duckenfield himself had a personal responsibility to prepare for policing the match which he did not perform. That he had apparently not even bothered to ask for a map of the place (he didn’t know how many turnstiles there were) is to my mind unforgivably negligent.
On the question of why the change of officer, the Guardian article I mentioned earlier suggests that the reason is that the previous commander, Mole, was busted down as a punishment following a bullying incident involving some of his rank and file officers. He claims that he offered to hand on his policing plan for the match to Duckenfield; Duckenfield denies this. It’s difficult to know. In all events, I think Duckenfield’s woeful lack of preparation cannot be entirely blamed on institutional causes. He had a personal responsibility to do the best job he could under the circumstances and I don’t think he took it anywhere near seriously enough, largely because he was only thinking about “trouble” and not about crowd flows.
I do think the higher ranks of SYP bear responsibility for the removal of Mole, OTOH, especially if the Guardian is indeed right about the reasons why it happened. ISTM that public safety wasn’t high up on their agenda when they made that decision. Furthermore, there is definitely institutional responsibility in relation to the shameful cover-up that happened afterwards.
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Byron
Shipmate
# 15532
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
[...] I think Duckenfield himself had a personal responsibility to prepare for policing the match which he did not perform. That he had apparently not even bothered to ask for a map of the place (he didn’t know how many turnstiles there were) is to my mind unforgivably negligent. [...]
Despite the hung jury in his first trial, with the evidence now marshaled and ruled on by an inquest jury, the manslaughter case against Duckenfield looks strong. The key questions are whether the fatal crush was reasonably foreseeable, and whether he was negligent.
It was undoubtedly foreseeable. With its bottleneck and pens, the Leppings Lane stand was a well-known high risk zone. Not only did the stand see an eerily similar crush in '81, which led to serious injuries (fatalities thankfully averted by opening the side gates, no sudden flow, and lack of subdivisions at the time), it got precarious when Liverpool played there in the '88 F.A. Cup semi-final, a crush only averted when the tunnel to the center pens was sealed.
As for potential grounds for negligence, that's already been detailed. He didn't familiarize himself with an area he should've known was a death trap. He didn't manage the crowds on the day. He didn't even post a couple stewards by the tunnel to radio through reports on overcrowding. If he'd shut the tunnel half an hour or so before the match, delayed kickoff, and had officers or stewards divert fans to the side pens, it would likely have passed off without serious incident.
He's of course presumed innocent, and may be able to defend against the charge, but with a case this strong, against decisions leading directly to 96 deaths, he should at least stand trial. If Duckenfield gets a total walk on involuntary manslaughter, it's hard to see who shouldn't.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
That reminded me that after Heysel, some people were prosecuted for manslaughter, including some Liverpool fans, I think, but also a police captain, and some football bureaucrats. Some fans were jailed.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Russ, if I may go back to what you originally said on this, quote:
Manslaughter is a useful concept. If I've understood it right, it refers to cases of unpremeditated but deliberate killing, or causing death through deliberately committing a lesser offence.
You cannot commit manslaughter by accident or stupidity. It involves criminal intent, but a lesser intent than murder.
Normally, to commit a criminal offence, you have to have intention. However, with manslaughter, you can't have an intention, because if you did, it would be murder. Manslaughter is therefore killing somebody negligently. You can indeed "commit manslaughter by accident or stupidity".
But that poses the question, how negligent do you have to be for that negligence to be criminal.
With manslaughter, you can't have an intention to kill because if you did, it would be murder.
You can be "at fault" for contributing to a death which you did not intend, either by
- intentionally carrying out an unlawful act (e.g. threatening behaviour with a firearm which accidentally goes off, arson of a building where you didn't know someone was inside), or
- intentionally omitting to fulfil a duty, deliberate neglect of responsibility (such as going off down the pub when you're supposed to be at your post).
But if you have no wrong intention - if you are putting due effort into obeying the law and fulfilling your contractual duties - and yet you still manage to make a mistake which has fatal consequences for someone, then I suggest to you that that is not a crime. But either of the words "accident" or "stupidity" may be appropriate.
Thinking after the event of all sorts of things that one could or should have done is easy. What seems reasonable in hindsight can seem unnecessary at the time, without requiring a careless or reckless attitude.
i think we have to be careful with the word "negligent". It can mean merely that someone omitted to do something, or can mean that someone took an overly-laid-back attitude, or can mean that the speaker thinks the action or inaction unreasonable and therefore culpable.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
Is there a lawyer in the house? I mean one qualified in English criminal law?
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
I just tend to look stuff up on Wikipedia nowadays.
Like this.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
BroJames
Shipmate
# 9636
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
<snip>i think we have to be careful with the word "negligent". It can mean merely that someone omitted to do something, or can mean that someone took an overly-laid-back attitude, or can mean that the speaker thinks the action or inaction unreasonable and therefore culpable.
Yes there can be degrees of negligence. To establish a charge of manslaughter, English law requires gross negligence to be proved. There is quite a lot of case law on this, not easily summarised, but those interested in reviewing it can find more here. (BTW, I am a lawyer, though not currently practising or insured to give advice!)
Posts: 3374 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Russ:
But if you have no wrong intention - if you are putting due effort into obeying the law and fulfilling your contractual duties - and yet you still manage to make a mistake which has fatal consequences for someone, then I suggest to you that that is not a crime. But either of the words "accident" or "stupidity" may be appropriate.
And again I would direct you to the question the Hillsborough jury were actually asked.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
I would direct you to the question the Hillsborough jury were actually asked.
Taking the second of the four questions, what does it mean to be "in breach of" one's duty ?
If a soldier's duty is to catch his enemy and his enemy is west of him but he travels east instead, is the mere outcome - the fact that he has gone the wrong way and thus failed to catch him - a breach of duty ? Does doing one's duty require success ?
Or is it a breach of duty if he has standing orders or standard procedure (like "listen for the enemy's footsteps") which should have led him in the right direction, and in the heat of the moment he doesn't do that ? But not a breach of duty if such orders or procedures leave it to his discretion which way to look first and he just happened to choose wrongly on a 50/50 chance basis?
Or is it only a breach of duty if he deliberately intends to go to where he suspects the enemy isn't, acts from a lack of dutifulness ?
Is it that you wish to punish failure, or punish not sticking to the standard procedures, or punish wrong intent ?
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Russ
Old salt
# 120
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by BroJames:
There is quite a lot of case law on this, not easily summarised, but those interested in reviewing it can find more here.
Thanks for the link, BroJames. Picking a sentence out of the first case cited:
"In order to establish criminal liability the facts must be such that in the opinion of the jury the negligence of the accused... ...showed such disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime against the State"
To disregard something is an action. This says that you can't convict someone for a risk they should have known about, they have to know it and actively disregard it. You can't disregard what you don't know.
--------------------
Wish everyone well; the enemy is not people, the enemy is wrong ideas
Posts: 3169 | From: rural Ireland | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
St Deird
Shipmate
# 7631
|
Posted
What Byron said. Manslaughter and negligence laws place a great deal of importance on the "reasonable person".
If I drop a brick on someone's head, it will probably harm them. But the question isn't whether I expect it to harm them - I might be an idiot, and completely out of touch with the laws of physics. The question is whether a reasonable person in my position would expect my actions to cause harm - in which case, I'm culpable for the harm caused whether I expected it or not.
--------------------
They're not hobbies; they're a robust post-apocalyptic skill-set.
Posts: 319 | From: the other side of nowhere | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
