21 replies to this topic

[Mbob61]

During a casual evening of drinking, a mate of mine asked a rather interesting moral question..
Is there a crime which could lead to prison or other imprisonment without a trial?
We were basing this on an moral, proper legal system such as Britain's as apposed to some places.
We did come up with answers which i will post after a few people have posted ideas...
We found it pretty hard to find something...

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 09 September 2010 - 13:32.

[SquigPie]

No,
Everyone, nomatter what they've done, deserve a trial.

[GuardianTempest]

^ Even High Treason?

[Golan]

Well, aside from the technicalities like pre-triel custody, a Rechtsstaat with proper separation of powers shouldn't have this legally happening. Unless you have Mr. Stalone hurrying through the streets, shouting "THE LAAAAAAAAAAW!!!", that is.

Oh by the way, why is this a moral question? Seems more like a legal one.

GuardianTempest, on 9 Sep 2010, 9:19, said:

^ Even High Treason?

Of course! Unless a court declares someone guilty, they aren't or we're back to burning witches.

Edited by Golan, 09 September 2010 - 09:25.

[GuardianTempest]

Golan, on 9 Sep 2010, 17:24, said:

Well, aside from the technicalities like pre-triel custody, a Rechtsstaat with proper separation of powers shouldn't have this legally happening. Unless you have Mr. Stalone hurrying through the streets, shouting "THE LAAAAAAAAAAW!!!", that is.

Oh by the way, why is this a moral question? Seems more like a legal one.

GuardianTempest, on 9 Sep 2010, 9:19, said:

^ Even High Treason?

Of course! Unless a court declares someone guilty, they aren't or we're back to burning witches.

Except in Mexico(I think).

[Golan]

Mbob61, on 9 Sep 2010, 0:48, said:

We were basing this on an moral, proper legal system such as Britain's as apposed to some places.

[SquigPie]

Golan, on 9 Sep 2010, 11:54, said:

Mbob61, on 9 Sep 2010, 0:48, said:

We were basing this on an moral, proper legal system such as Britain's as apposed to some places.

Patriot much?

Besides, whats the point of this whole question? It doesn't even put us in a dilemma about what the right thing to do is.

Edited by SquigPie, 09 September 2010 - 10:26.

[Golan]

SquigPie, on 9 Sep 2010, 10:23, said:

Golan, on 9 Sep 2010, 11:54, said:

Mbob61, on 9 Sep 2010, 0:48, said:

We were basing this on an moral, proper legal system such as Britain's as apposed to some places.

Patriot much?

Pardon?

[SquigPie]

Was talking about Mbob.

[Alias]

How is that patriotic?

Modern British law forms the basis of most legal systems worldwide, which itself was based of the old Greek and Roman systems.

[CJ]

Alias, on 9 Sep 2010, 12:27, said:

How is that patriotic?

Modern British law forms the basis of most legal systems worldwide, which itself was based of the old Greek and Roman systems.

Well that surely explains why so many legal systems are fucked up...
Anyway, to answer the topic, I don't think there could be any case in which you'd go to prison without getting a trial with the British system, I mean, isn't the "Guilty unless proven otherwise" one of the main points of the Human Rights?

[Libains]

I'll go a little more in depth later on, but suffice to say that Alias is entirely right - the UK legal system is one of the most respected in the world due to it's case law, rather than reading specifically from a constitution and interpreting as such from that.

As to the original question, you can be held without trial for periods of time under the Terrorism Act (an Act that is grossly abused and misused), but it is an impossibility to be imprisoned without fair trial (aside from the few rare things we don't know about but can all hazard a guess at). The UK legal system works under case law, therefore without the cases you have no law and thus no verdict. It's just not feasible to be imprisoned without seeing either a jury of your peers, a magistrate, or a judge(s).

[Mbob61]

SquigPie, on 9 Sep 2010, 11:23, said:

Besides, whats the point of this whole question? It doesn't even put us in a dilemma about what the right thing to do is.

I guess moral wasn't the right word for it
I used it as to begin with we were trying to think of something so terrible on moral grounds a trial wouldn't be warranted but we couldn't (except for some ridiculous situations.)
As to the point, there isn't a "point" to it so to speak. It was just a question posed by a mate last night and i wondered if anyone here could think of things we didn't think of.

As i said, we had 1-2 ideas although one of them is more of a technicality which i'll post later on today when i have a bit more time.

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 09 September 2010 - 13:33.

[Golan]

You do realize that would be illegal though, don't you? So it's kinda pointless arguing it from a legal point in the first place, as the entire point is that a crime warrants disregarding the Law?

Edited by Golan, 09 September 2010 - 14:08.

[Mbob61]

We were trying to find a situation in which it would be legal.
We couldn't think of a crime but what about this...

What if a Siamese twin commits murder and it sentences to prison, what about his brother? Lets say his brother calls the police and is proven innocent before the need to go to a trial on lack of evidence and therefore is not charged. His brother could be convicted and sent to prison. In this situation, surely his brother would also go to prison without a trial?

This is as close as we could get to being punished and sent to prison without a trial..

Mike

Edited by Mbob61, 09 September 2010 - 14:16.

[Golan]

If a siamese twin commits murder, his twin would be guilty as his accessory.

[Mbob61]

Not necessarily?
Perhaps there could be evidence such as CCTV or witness statements which could prove he was innocent and wanted no part in the action and actively tried to discourage it?

Mike

[Shirou]

War prisoners, imprisoned without a trial...

[Golan]

Mbob61, on 9 Sep 2010, 14:59, said:

Not necessarily?
Perhaps there could be evidence such as CCTV or witness statements which could prove he was innocent and wanted no part in the action and actively tried to discourage it?

Mike

True enough. But to get back to the initial question "Is there a crime which could lead to prison or other imprisonment without a trial?" that wouldn't actually be a crime leading to imprisonment, more like a freak incident. Like, a convicted murderer breaking free on his transfer from court to prison, only for his twin brother to be falsely arrested in his stead and thrown right into prison for his brother's crime.

[Mbob61]

True but buts the closest we could get
Thats why i posted it, to see if others could come up with something.
Also, apparently that Siamese question was the Explainers question of the year 2009.

Mike

[Libains]

Shirou, on 9 Sep 2010, 16:20, said:

War prisoners, imprisoned without a trial...

This isn't really applicable to the question at hand, as while PoW are imprisoned, they are not imprisoned for a crime committed - in fact their very status as a PoW grants them immunity from prosecution for anything they did during the war. This isn't always followed, but aside from very rare cases, PoWs are imprisoned to prevent them from fight, not for any crime they may have committed, as during war, as a serving member of military personnel you don't actually break any laws as long as you don't do things outside of the chain of command.

Re: The siamese twins this is a legal conundrum, but it is extremely unlikely that the twins would be imprisoned for the crimes of one. However, as Golan points out, one would be imprisoned for the being an accessory to the crime itself, while the other would be charged for committing the crime. Even if the second twin had no control over what their twin was doing, they would still be an accessory, as their (shared) body was being used to perform the deed - even if you don't mean to do something illegal and yet do, you are still culpable. As to how the sentence would pan out would be another thing altogether, of course - which sentence should be carried through?

No matter how you try to swing this one, the legal system will not readily convict someone without a trial first. They may well get it wrong, but there will always be a trial.

[Chyros]

Quote

Is there a crime which could lead to prison or other imprisonment without a trial?

In the US, you can get imprisoned and legally tortured without trial, lawyer, phone call, legal counsel or any civil rights of any kind at all if you are suspected of terrorism, and there are no criteria for this suspicion to exist, so technically everyone can be suspected of this without conforming to any criteria or evidence. Thank the PATRIOT act for that. ACTA is a similar "law" they want to implement, btw.

In my opinion, the "innocent until guilty" rule is one of the highest and most precious values of humanity. IMO there is no excuse ever for diminishing or circumventing this rule, ever. Just like I don't see any justification for the death penalty. There are some things that humans are entitled to by their government, by definition. The moment these are compromised, it's not the government serving the people, but the people serving the government, and that's the opposite of what it's supposed to be.

Therefore, to the question "Is there a crime which could lead to prison or other imprisonment without a trial?" I say that no, there shouldn't be one, ever. No matter how big a bastard you are, no person, government body or entity should ever have the right to convict you without a fair trail. If you are a mass rapist who raped and killed ten thousand girls and someone shoots you in the face, they are still a murderer and not an angel descended from heaven. Any infraction of that rule is simply inhumane.