That's basically what I said. If somebody falsely accuses me of shoplifting, they should be sentenced to the same term that I would have gotten for shoplifting (plus an add-on for the false accusation). If they falsely accuse me of murder, they should get the sentence that I would have gotten for murder (plus the add-on).oleg-karow wrote:"I've long thought that people who falsely accuse people of a crime and are proven to have done so knowing that person was not guilty should be sentenced for the crime they falsely accused the other of."
A person should be tried and punished if they give false information . But only for what they have done = giveing false information . The punishment should reflect the severity of the acusation and its consequencys .
So again we agree. Even if the accuser has a big reason to lie, the investigation should still be done.oleg-karow wrote:"But would you have the police not investigate these allegations at all? "
All acusations should be fairly invesatigated .
In the case under discussion, when the person was described as "previously of good character", remember what that really means -- "of good character as far as anybody knew".
You seemed to be railing against the police investigating people based on accusations from "stoolies". However, you've just said that all accusations should be fairly investigated, so you obviously don't have a problem investigating what might be false accusations. The important things are that such allegations should be taken with a grain of salt and quickly discovering if the allegation is false.oleg-karow wrote:"in your world, the criminal leaders would never face justice."
Its not my world that you are talking about its your missunderstanding of what i say and believe . See above .
So in other words, there are bad cops out there. If it's proven they've committed criminal misdeeds, they should get the sentence for the crimes they were framing people for, plus the false accusation add-on plus another add-on for abusing their position of authority.oleg-karow wrote:I am specificaly talking about the UK . An example . Near where you live there was a murder on a kid called Carl Bridgewater . The police falsifyed evidence and made false statements to the courts . The acused were found guilty and imprisoned . Another one was the birmingham bombings where the police tortured the acused , made false statements against them and presented false evidence to the courts . There are VERY many examples of things like that hapening in the UK .
However, people are people and some will be bad. That doesn't make the system bad.
It's not the same thing and you know it. The defendent doesn't have to say a thing in court. He still has to comply with legal requirements during the investigation (like giving DNA, fingerprints -- or passwords).oleg-karow wrote:"The defendant doesn't have to say a thing"
In this case , with the "law" that they used the guy was imprisoned for exactly that .
Assuming facts not in evidence. The law could have been legitimate but no longer necessary, too expensive to enforce, poorly worded (loopholes), overly broad (possibly the case here), etc. It does not necessarily mean that there is no legitimate need for such a law.oleg-karow wrote:"Laws which allowed that were repealed around 5 years ago."
Thanks . The british parlament has passed a law that was not legitimate
Take an example from the movie "Walking Tall". An old law from the time horses shared the road and before cars were ubiquitous said that motorized vehicles had to have certain warnings. Once cars were very popular and people no longer used horses as a primary means of transportation, that law could have been repealed. (In the movie, it hadn't been and the hero used it to upset the villain.) That doesn't mean that the original law was not "legitimate". (Presumably when you say "legitimate", you mean "moral".)
No, it doesn't. He is still presumed innocent in court, but has to provide evidence based on a legal order.oleg-karow wrote:"British ..... law have presumption of innocence."
Had . As this case proves .
Even presuming the law isn't "legitimate", one exception does not mean the whole system is broken; it just shows that it's not perfect (which, given that it was created by man, is a given).