| Blogs > bondjam33 > The pursuit of happiness |
|
Legalistic musings A man enters another sovereign country carrying weapons for which he has no authorisation. He is arrested and held in prison awaiting trial. He is detained for 214 days -- not an unusually long time for most legal systems throughout the world. At that trial his plea that his crime (for such it is as he has broken the law) was a sin of omission and caused by his PTSD, which was the reason for his mistake. The judges allow his defence and he is set free. Would anyone care to comment about this story? Was the man fairly treated? In my opinion I think he was. Was his release justified? I would argue that it shows the fairness of the legal process and was justified in the circumstances - but this case could easily have resulted in a prison sentence in many countries. Should he have been convicted af a crime? I am happy that he was not convicted but I would consider myself quite lucky to have been released without charge if I had been in similar circumstances. |
|||
|
I was not aware that I made any peripheral points about other people - I simply stated the facts of a legal case. You reply displays your prejudices and shows that you dd not even consider the case on its merits. Poor show in my opinion.
| ||
|
Once again completely missing the point. The facts of the case are stated above. There is no reference to any peripheral characters simply a statement of a case. I make no political ponts at all. The only opinions I expressed are that I think on balance the case was fairly treated by the legal system.
| ||
|
i would expect no other thinking from bond. The first paragraph is simply a statement of facts. If you wish to disagree with any of the facts then I would be happy to hear your argument. If you think my opinions are wrong then please tell me in detail where you think they are in error.
| ||
|
I fail to see the relevance of Kafka here. His crime was never revealed and the prosecuting authority was equally nebulous. In this case the facts were very clear and the legal authority equally so. In addition the trial here followed transparent legal process and the outcome was probably just.
| ||
|
Hello Bond. I think on the whole he was fairly treated. I'm sure the judges would have reviewed/considered all information at hand with sound judgement and compassion winning the day. Irrespective of circumstances though, he knowingly committed a crime and therefore a conviction in keeping with omission would I think have been appropriate. Perhaps the judges thought it unnecessary as they were confident there wouldn't be a repeat of said incident/crime after a stern warning (?).
| ||
|
Hello Bond. I think on the whole he was fairly treated. I'm sure the judges would have reviewed/considered all information at hand with sound judgement and compassion winning the day. Irrespective of circumstances though, he knowingly committed a crime and therefore a conviction in keeping with omission would I think have been appropriate. Perhaps the judges thought it unnecessary as they were confident there wouldn't be a repeat of said incident/crime (?).
|
×
×