Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Bruce_ma gooshvili" data-source="post: 1069833" data-attributes="member: 74121"><p>I am immensely hostile to the concept of a hereditary monarchy in the 21st century, but I'm also pretty hostile to the concept of civil cases in relation to alleged offences that are criminal in nature.</p><p></p><p>In this instance, if Andrew Windsor has in had sexual relations with someone in a territory where that person was underage, I think it should be investigated as such and dropped if their is insufficient evidence.</p><p></p><p>In the UK we have bizarre scenarios where you can have a full police investigation and a jury trial, which finds you 'not guilty' of a criminal offence (or 'not proven' in Scotland which I think is way better). Yet, you can then find yourself back in court for the same offence with a less detailed, non-police led investigation and a lower threshold for a guilty verdict (balance of probability versus reasonable doubt for a criminal case). So you can be found not guilty of an offence but then found guilty for the same offence and ordered to pay criminal damages. </p><p></p><p>Being dispassionate and setting aside the Andy Windsor case, what is the argument for dedicating state resources to civil cases in relation to essentially criminal matters? Does anyone know?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Bruce_ma gooshvili, post: 1069833, member: 74121"] I am immensely hostile to the concept of a hereditary monarchy in the 21st century, but I'm also pretty hostile to the concept of civil cases in relation to alleged offences that are criminal in nature. In this instance, if Andrew Windsor has in had sexual relations with someone in a territory where that person was underage, I think it should be investigated as such and dropped if their is insufficient evidence. In the UK we have bizarre scenarios where you can have a full police investigation and a jury trial, which finds you 'not guilty' of a criminal offence (or 'not proven' in Scotland which I think is way better). Yet, you can then find yourself back in court for the same offence with a less detailed, non-police led investigation and a lower threshold for a guilty verdict (balance of probability versus reasonable doubt for a criminal case). So you can be found not guilty of an offence but then found guilty for the same offence and ordered to pay criminal damages. Being dispassionate and setting aside the Andy Windsor case, what is the argument for dedicating state resources to civil cases in relation to essentially criminal matters? Does anyone know? [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Other Stuff
The Clubhouse Bar
A Political Thread pt. 2
Top