well not really.

I am just having trouble grasping this concept.
It will show how most legal systems are seriously F***ed.

Name a crime.

Stealing a Car
Punching someone in the face
Stabbing someone
Vandalism

All crimes right ?

Yes,

and the perpetrator can ONLY be charged with committing these crimes if the victim decided to press charges against him ... if he feels like it...

I just can't get my head around that concept.
The only exception I can think of where you get charged no matter what - is murder, and in that case the person CANNOT press charges themselves ( being dead ) so it is automatically applied on their behalf. Automatically asssuming that they would have wanted to press charges.

True, most people DO press charges in most cases.

But I think it terribly strange that the law is in OUR hands... the Victim has the power to decide what happens...

If you smash a car window in full view , in broad daylight, in the street, and are caught, if the owner of that car doesn't press charges , there is no punishment for you!

Therefore the police have full knowledge of you committing a crime but have ABSOLUTELY NO POWER whatsoever in the matter because it is up to the individual to decide whether or not you get punished ...

Sure the POLICE try to persuade the person to press charges, but if they don't - well I just can't seem to understand this ...

NO PUNISHMENT for a crime that the police have full knowledge about ?

Where is the line drawn, Obviously murder, but where does the choice of an individual victim cease to be the deciding factor in the fate of the perpetrator ?

How far can you go ? How far can you take it ?

Can anyone explain this ? Have I got it all wrong ?

.

It's actually to our benefit to keep it this way. As you said, homicide is one exception to the rule, but for most crimes, you have to be accused by someone to be convicted of a crime against them.

Imagine if your city or state or even the federal government were to randomly accuse people of crimes and prosecute them as such. Of course, they would need proof, but imagine us using a public defender against the federal government's lawyers. Only the wealthiest of citizens would be able to afford the best attorneys.

Even more so, this would lead us to a fascist state, if we simply allowed the state to prosecute individuals without any accuser.

Our system is not perfect by any means, but structured as it is, it is still the best judicial system in the world.

1

(I'm counting the number of threads that people post in the wrong forum )

2the9s said:

good points mrchristian

but that's not the angle I was looking at.

Sure you need an accuser but I don't think it's up to the accuser to decide on the punishment.
Once the police have the information it is up to THEM.

"the police have full knowledge of you committing a crime but have ABSOLUTELY NO POWER whatsoever in the matter because it is up to the individual to decide whether or not you get punished ...

Sure the POLICE try to persuade the person to press charges, but if they don't - well I just can't seem to understand this ...

NO PUNISHMENT for a crime that the police have full knowledge about ? "

and being accused is different to pressing charges.

IF someone smashes a window in my house,
There are witnesses. They report the crime.
THE witnesses are the accusers.
Police call me up and ask me if I want to press charges.
it is MY CHOICE

that is my MAIN point.
A Crime was committed, whether an individual accepts that as morally ok or not is not the point, it is not up to him to judge the criminal.

The victim's part should go as far as contacting the police, telling what crime was commiteed, then the police should deal out the punishment, I just don't see how or why the victim gets the choice to let someone go free after committing a crime.


.

Let's go with your one example: Someone smashes your window with brick and your neighbors see it happen, they see the perpetrator, and tell you about it.
You go to the police station and tell them what happened. Why can't you simply tell the police and be done with it?
Because in our court system(in the US-i don't know about South Korea), we are allowed to confront our accusers: the homeowner and the witnesses, your neighbors.

Thus, we are not only holding the suspect accountable to their actions, but also holding the accusers and witnesses accountable to their statements.
Sounds odd, but don't you think suspects have a right to defend themselves? Many times, the complaintants have alterier motives, and the defendant's attorney can address that in court.

With absolute proof of the suspect's guilt--i.e. the suspect admitting guilt, a video showing the suspect's face while throwing the brick--the complaintant won't have any problem finding the suspect guilty.

But what if they don't? And they only have your neighbors eye witness accounts to go on? What if your neighbors didn't actually see who threw it, but saw a group of ppl together just prior to it happening? What if they only saw the backs of their heads? What if they don't like a certain person and want to accuse them of said crime?
Again the suspects lawyer can address those issues in court and the jury decides who's lying and telling the full story.

ok

"in our court system(in the US-i don't know about South Korea), we are allowed to confront our accusers: the homeowner and the witnesses, your neighbors."

Well to tell the truth, I wouldn't have a clue about South Korea myself... I'm just talking about western countries in general... what exactly do you mean by CONFRONT them ?

"Thus, we are not only holding the suspect accountable to their actions, but also holding the accusers and witnesses accountable to their statements. "

I agree with that. but that is only the case if you intend to press charges, is it not ? Once you tell the police,
"I saw blah blah... " you can tell the police "here are the names of the witnesses", Then the police get the job done.
THEY Contact the witnesses, get statements , whatever they need to do. Your part is done. If they need you to go to court as a witness so be it, but still my original point is the victim shouldn't have the choice to decide the fate of the criminal.

"Sounds odd, but don't you think suspects have a right to defend themselves? Many times, the complaintants have alterier motives, and the defendant's attorney can address that in court. "

Not odd at all...Of course they have a right to defend themselves, everyone does. If the supposed victim DOES have ulterior motives, then that would probably come out in court. Still it shouldn't be the CHOICE of the victim to have the whole thing taken to court in the first place.

"With absolute proof of the suspect's guilt--i.e. the suspect admitting guilt, a video showing the suspect's face while throwing the brick--the complaintant won't have any problem finding the suspect guilty."

I agree 100% but once again the alleged victim should not have ULTIMATE POWER over whether they are all even in the court that day or not.

"But what if they don't? And they only have your neighbors eye witness accounts to go on? What if your neighbors didn't actually see who threw it, but saw a group of ppl together just prior to it happening? What if they only saw the backs of their heads? What if they don't like a certain person and want to accuse them of said crime?
Again the suspects lawyer can address those issues in court and the jury decides who's lying and telling the full story."

True True, but still THAT is up to the judges, jury and court to decide.

Why do individuals get to decide the option of pressing charges, yet have NO SAY whatsoever in the outcome of the trial ?

Once you report a crime, it shouldn't be up to you whether or not to judge "hmm is this ok ?, should this guy get off scotfree for this ?"

Everything you said , is based on the fact that it went to court, indicating someone DID in fact press charges.

I am just saying that is too much power for an individual to have. To basically decide the fate of another human being.
Someone could stab you 20 times, yet miraculously you live.
That person ATTEMPTED MURDER yet can get off scotfree if you excercise your right to choose that option.
Whether there were no witnesses or 86 witnesses
it is still YOUR Choice.
Likely in every case people WILL press charges but there could be many exceptions. (Temporary insanity of a family member etc.) I think alot of people wouldn't press charges in certain circumstances.
Now sure temporary insanity is a choice for a lawyer to please, the result is not the point .
The point is that the victim has the FINAL say whether it goes ahead or not.

Do you see my point ?



It just seems very strange to me.

another situation ...

Spousal abuse

A woman too scared to press charges because of the consequences ,

No more of that "oh I walked into a door" crap either ...
If neighbours call the cops about screaming and fighting ..
and then the cops turn up
the woman says oh " no problem here officer"
police really can't do anything unless the woman asks them to.

She has to give the word ...

that is just insane, when it is blatantly obvious, police should have the power to do something...

This is a good thing in some ways though:

Lets say the cops are mad at this one guy Fred for many reasons...

Fred can have a friend who agrees to go along with Fred in getting the cops flustered etc..

Fred goes to his friends store and starts breaking glass, items, front windows

Friend of Fred calls cops to see what the commotion is and friend of Fred says "let Fred alone..I am not pressing charges" when they get there

Fred continues to break things in plain view of the cops getting them more flustered pointing at them teasing them

FunkyStrange said:

The accuser does not decide the punishment. The only decision taken by the accuser is whether to allow charges to be pressed. Even then, the accused may not find themselves facing the charges (the police may discover further evidence subsequently that helps them recognise that no crime had been committed, so there is no charge to face) and tried for a crime.

The person that decides on the punishment, at least under the criminal system with which I am acquainted, is the legal authority: police, magistrate or judge, although their discretion may be limited by the law that applies to the crime that has been committed if a crime has indeed been committed.Yes, and part of the information they often require, is whether the victim wishes to press charges. then it is over to them. A crime has not been committed at this point. There has simply been an event or series of events which may yet be judged as criminal. Furthermore, there is no criminal at this point. There is simply someone accused of a crime who is innocent until

proven guilty

No. the alleged victim is entitled to report the alleged incident to the legal authorities. The law enforcement body may consider there is sufficient evidence for someone to have charges pressed and perhaps even stand trial. The alleged victim will be asked if they want the matter to proceed further. If they do not, then there is no record of a crime having been committed - simply an unproven allegation of a potentially criminal act. In such an instance, with no crime having been shown to have been committed, there is no criminal. If however a case is proven for a crime having been committed and an individual is found guilty of the crime, then the law enforcers judge what penalty is to be applied to the criminal.

Mr Christian's example illustates part of this well.

Another example:

There is a domestic disturbance and neighbours alert the police to a suspicion of a violent encounter. The police arrive at the location and discover that two people living together, let us say two brothers, are involved in an argument.

Both brothers have bruised eyes. The police ask 'Have you been fighting each other?' Both brothers agree that they have been. Under your example, there is prima facie evidence (although it is not proven at this stage) that both brothers have committed a crime of assault on each other, perhaps amounting to actual or grievous bodily harm.

Funky Strange, you would argue that the police should then take control and charge both brothers with a crime regardless of whether either or both wish to press charges. Both brothers might even consider that fighting was stupid and wrong, but they are prepared to forgive each other. But the FunkyStrange law says, 'No. Brothers, you have no say in this. Two bruised eyes and a couple of nods of the head amount to two more criminals who need to be brought to justice. It's morally wrong to hurt someone else, and what's more - you even acknowledge it is morally wrong to hurt someone else. But the law is the law.'

Under Mr Christian's approach, the brothers may both agree not to proceed against each other. No crime is recorded, because none has been proven, and neither brother is found to be a criminal.

The reason I am using this example is because it is important to test the principles that are used to apply both law and justice, to see if the principle is correct. Under FunkStrange's approach, the law is being applied to the letter, but can you honestly say that it was just to try and perhaps even find guilty both these brothers of a crime when they were both prepared to forgive each other?

"The accuser does not decide the punishment. The only decision taken by the accuser is whether to allow charges to be pressed. Even then, the accused may not find themselves facing the charges (the police may discover further evidence subsequently that helps them recognise that no crime had been committed, so there is no charge to face) and tried for a crime."

True they don't decide on a punishment, ( that was a typing error ) but by pressing charges they allow the possibilty to exist. Then therefore as I understand it, they decide partly the fate of that person.

"The person that decides on the punishment, at least under the criminal system with which I am acquainted, is the legal authority: police, magistrate or judge"

And again my point is that it is up to the accuser to bring this into attention. But my bringing this to attention, if the accused ARE in fact guilty in part the accuser is deciding the fate of that person, as I see it anyway.

"part of the information they often require, is whether the victim wishes to press charges. then it is over to them."

Exactly my point, if that eprson doesnt press charges, usualy nothing can happen, then the accused gets to go on his merry way...

"A crime has not been committed at this point. There has simply been an event or series of events which may yet be judged as criminal. Furthermore, there is no criminal at this point. There is simply someone accused of a crime who is innocent until proven guilty"

"No. the alleged victim ...SNIP... criminal.

Well if you want to quote me on exact words go ahead, I'm just trying to say how I see it, excuse me for not using the exactly correct terminology.
So you are in fact saying if anyone commits a crime and DOESN'T get caught - then no crime has been committed ?
SO if someone kills someone, and never gets caught, that person is not considered a criminal by you ?
He just took part in an event ?
For example - a gymkhana ? a town fair ?
I wouldn't like to live in your world ...

As for the two brother's examples, we can throw around specific examples till the cows come home, of course there will be exceptions to every law/rule.
As there are exceptions in the law that currently exists.

I am not really suggesting that MY idea is any better, just that the current way doesn't seem the best way to do things.

Just because I don't have the perfect soultion doesn't mean I can't critize the current ways.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 11:27:10 PST 2002 by FunkyStrange]

Damn... y'all R Law school students or so???

Thierry said:

they're defenders of the funk and of freedom..

Ooooh... where did they apply for that job??

Free to change your mind...

Free to do most anything, anytime

aghh HIJACKED by iconman ~!!!

KILL KILL KILL

LOL

Be glad for what you got...

Thierry said:

What song is this from?

FunkyStrange said:

he got it..Funkystrange has just been org thread jacked lol--I thought FS was gonna get pissed lol.

If you take your life for granted, your beating heart will go... bam bam

"Right The Wrong" isn't it ? LOL

Will we all fight! For the right to be Free...free...free...

YEAHHH!!!

Oooh, ooh, ooh, ohhh, ohhh, ohhh...

FunkyStrange said:

Free

The thread jackers have just taken control...

uhh.. see the "LOL" after I said that

go bury grandma in her high heels or
whatever the hell he says hehe

FunkyStrange said:

FunkyStrange said:

also because I realy didn't know it was free till a minute after thinking about it

.
[This message was edited Wed Dec 18 11:56:21 PST 2002 by rdhull]