Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sometimes being a good citizen just doesn't pay.
After having more than enough debates about weapons being locked, the above madness comes up: Man finds gun, turns in to police, and goes directly to sentencing.

Zero tolerance, mandatory sentencing, what have you seems to be feel-good legislation at best. Being that mankind is inherently flawed, should we not include some leeway for circumstances to dictate the best social result? What room do we need to give our society for circumstances outside the intended application of law?

This shows the flaw in the new kind of laws which impose strict liability.

Once again it proves the adage that laws made quickly are laws made badly.

Meanwhile 40% of people arrested for serious violence get a caution.

"Zero tolerance" is nearly always a result of blind panicking in the face of whatever crime is the scariest at the moment. Otherwise it wouldn't have been tolerated before the policy was made.

(Here's another interesting reading, about its use in schools.)

Yea zero tolerance is pretty stupid to say the least especially in cases like these. Gun control/lawmakers are being counter productive here.

Wow, thats terrible. Who would just throw away a double barrel....



Oh and also it sucks that his government is full of gun fearing idiots.

This is pretty much a failure of all branches of government. Obviously the legistlature wrote a stupid law, but why would the police arrest, and the crown prosecute, such a ridiculous case?

Stateside, that's a prosecution that causes a district attorney to get voted out of office.

Is there any mechanism for pardons and reprieves in the UK?

Any law that forbids the possession of firearms is stupid.

warpcrafter wrote:Any law that forbids the possession of firearms is stupid.

So you'd have no problem with a paranoid schizophrenic murderer rapist on parole possessing a gun?

Modquisition on. We have no proof that his (who's "his"?) government is full of gun fearing idiots. No need to bash the UK here-such nuttiness is universal.

Polonius wrote:This is pretty much a failure of all branches of government. Obviously the legistlature wrote a stupid law, but why would the police arrest, and the crown prosecute, such a ridiculous case?

Stateside, that's a prosecution that causes a district attorney to get voted out of office.

Is there any mechanism for pardons and reprieves in the UK?

Yes. He can appeal. It might not work in this case because of the strict liability aspect. Ultimately I suppose the Queen could give a pardon.

Thanks to bad lawmaking by the government, the police and judiciary often find their hands tied.

There was a case recently in which a man was prosecuted for a particularly disgusting sex crime. I won't go into the details. The point was that the evidence was incontrovertible because the guy videotaped himself doing it. He pled guilty and was therefore given 1/3rd off his sentence (can't remember the exact figure.)

The government complained about the ridiculousness of the judge giving such a low sentence and he pointed out he had to do it because sentencing rules recently introduced by the government made it mandatory.

I'd have kept it and told people to get off my lawn.

Waaagh_Gonads wrote:I'd have kept it and told people to get off my lawn.

exactly. This si what happens when you deny providence. Did Godfather I teach us nothing?

Kilkrazy wrote:There was a case recently in which a man was prosecuted for a particularly disgusting sex crime. I won't go into the details. The point was that the evidence was incontrovertible because the guy videotaped himself doing it. He pled guilty and was therefore given 1/3rd off his sentence (can't remember the exact figure.)

The government complained about the ridiculousness of the judge giving such a low sentence and he pointed out he had to do it because sentencing rules recently introduced by the government made it mandatory.

Can the guy be placed into GP for the entirety of his sentence? That should more than make up for its reduced nature. It would be nice if he had his whereabouts made known after release so the victim could at least have some warning of him.

It sucks that it happened to the guy, but my first move would have been to call the police, just to be on the safe side. Let's remember that he took it into his house, kept it there overnight, then transported it to the police station the next day. What if he had been caught with it in his possesion before that?
For all the people making 'gun-fearing idiots hurrr'-type statements:
What would happen if in this scenario, the UK was replaced with the USA, and the shotgun was replaced with a kilo of cocaine? If he was found at home with it in his possesion, would the excuse 'I was gonna take it to the police station tomorrow, honest!' carry much weight? When would it stop being illegal to have it on his person? Only at the very moment he handed it in?
Posession is posession, if the law says it's illegal to posess something it's tough luck, IMHO.
Otherwise there'd be too much ambiguity - any scrote carrying a weapon could claim they were on their way to hand it in to the bobbies! I know the guy ACTUALLY handed it in, but the law's the law - even though it does seem harsh to me.

Should have just tossed it over into his neighbors yard.

That's shocking!
Stuff like this is one of the reasons groups like the BNP gain footing.

@Dreadwinter - Good call, mate.

p.s. I'm glad I don't live next door to you!

And then called the cops about his neighbors having a gun.

Wow, It's not everyday your childhood village shows up on Dakka.

Albatross wrote:What would happen if in this scenario, the UK was replaced with the USA, and the shotgun was replaced with a kilo of cocaine? If he was found at home with it in his possesion, would the excuse 'I was gonna take it to the police station tomorrow, honest!' carry much weight? When would it stop being illegal to have it on his person? Only at the very moment he handed it in?

That'd depend on the jurisdiction.

Strict adherence to a law can have dire consequences. I'd think blind adherence was an excuse for jobsworths and city councils rather than thinking men and women.

I find it hard to believe that there would ever be a set of circumstances where possesion of hard drugs would be overlooked by the authorities in the USA, given that people have received life imprisonment for growing marijuana.

We have something called Jury nullification that has a fair cance of just dropping the charges, and the DA has the authority to decline to prosecute in many jurisdictions.

Intent to distribute is an actual charge here in the US, which could be the single charge of a case. A man who voluntarily turned over a ridiculous amount of a drug could easily be argued as not having intent to distribute. Then again, under RICO, his spouse and roommates could be charged as well.

The *option* not to prosecute is largely still there.

Albatross wrote:It sucks that it happened to the guy, but my first move would have been to call the police, just to be on the safe side. Let's remember that he took it into his house, kept it there overnight, then transported it to the police station the next day. What if he had been caught with it in his possesion before that?
For all the people making 'gun-fearing idiots hurrr'-type statements:
What would happen if in this scenario, the UK was replaced with the USA, and the shotgun was replaced with a kilo of cocaine? If he was found at home with it in his possesion, would the excuse 'I was gonna take it to the police station tomorrow, honest!' carry much weight? When would it stop being illegal to have it on his person? Only at the very moment he handed it in?
Posession is posession, if the law says it's illegal to posess something it's tough luck, IMHO.
Otherwise there'd be too much ambiguity - any scrote carrying a weapon could claim they were on their way to hand it in to the bobbies! I know the guy ACTUALLY handed it in, but the law's the law - even though it does seem harsh to me.

The problem with just saying "the law's the law" is that part of the point of the judicial system's existence (in America and the UK; I don't think as much in continental Europe) is to interpret the spirit of the law. Obviously saying you were just about to go do something in the interests of the justice system with a contraband object isn't going to be a good defense, but actually doing it should be. In most cases a crime goes before the court, and they both find guilt and a reasonable sentence; in this case they weren't able to do the later, and it seems that law also tried to stop people from doing the former by their interpretations.

So you mean RAI, not RAW?
I agree with you up to a point, and I think it's harsh that the guy could go to jail for this - but the law in this case seems to be intentionally unambiguous. That's why I would have left the gun where it was and called the police to come and deal with it. They have gun and knife amnesties here where you can bring weapons to a police station and hand them in, no questions asked. That would lead ME to think that taking it to the station myself would be a no-no.

Unambiguous to the jury maybe; it was evidently still ambiguous for the ex-soldier. Making a law that's as counter-intuitive as to jail someone for aiding the police is going to bring trouble; it goes against what a reasonable person would likely see the law as being, and at that point the literal wording means little. (Then taking the enforcement of this law away from the judicial system, where a person could actually argue against the law, is just awful policy.)

Wow, remind me if I'm ever over there to not turn a gun into police on good will. I'll just walk by and pretend not to notice.

Here in the states you'd probably receive a big fat "thank you" for doing your civic duty.

Ah well.

Well, we don't usually leave them lying around like that, to be fair!
Still though, the guy had a choice - it was in his garden. He could have called the police immediately instead of carrying it around on his person. It's not the states - gun ownership is not widespread at all. Carrying a firearm is highly illegal (unless you're a copper, or have a license), and anyone possesing one (whatever the reason, or circumstance) is gonna get nicked. End of. And I support this. I think it is of vital importance to keep guns and knives off our streets. If that means cases like this have to happen, so be it. The guy technically broke the law.
If that sounds harsh, it's no harsher than another thread where someone said that they support the death-penalty for similar reasons - 'If 1 out of every 100 people executed is innocent, its worth it to get the guilty ones' or words to that effect. But THAT's another thread entirely!

Why is it of vital importance to jail people who can prove beyond the shadow of doubt that they were only possessing contraband to bring it to the proper authorities?

The UK still follows natural justice, which basically allows a judge to recognise that a strict reading of the law wil result in a really messed penalty and so look past the law. There's also plenty of scope in punishment, the guy is likely to be given a suspended sentence, though I'm not sure if he'll have to have a conviction recorded or not.

It's pretty silly the case got that far, but people seem to be forming the opinion that outside the US the law is the law with no scope for interpretation, and that's just not true. In terms of introducing mandatory sentencing, three strikes laws and other legislation designed to remove discretion from jurists the US is actually leading the way (though the rest of us are catching up unfortunately).

sebster wrote:The UK still follows natural justice, which basically allows a judge to recognise that a strict reading of the law wil result in a really messed penalty and so look past the law. There's also plenty of scope in punishment, the guy is likely to be given a suspended sentence, though I'm not sure if he'll have to have a conviction recorded or not.

It's pretty silly the case got that far, but people seem to be forming the opinion that outside the US the law is the law with no scope for interpretation, and that's just not true. In terms of introducing mandatory sentencing, three strikes laws and other legislation designed to remove discretion from jurists the US is actually leading the way (though the rest of us are catching up unfortunately).

To be fair, mandatory sentencing at the federal level has never been accepted by the courts. Most judges follow the guidelines (as not doing so might be an abuse of discretion), and sentencing is unfortunately the main time a person appears in front of a judge (over 90% of criminal cases end in a plea bargain). There is something to the idea that allowing flexible sentencing violates due process, as sentences can be applied by whim. Of course, the case law is full of cases where people got stupidly high mandatory minimums for stuff.

Where this is an usual case is that it's a strict liability crime. Most crimes require two things: an actus rea, or bad act; and a mens rea, or a bad thought. Basically, in addition to committing the act of the crime, the state has to show that the defendant had the requisite mental state, be it premeditation, willfullness, recklessness, etc. In a strict liability crime, all you have to do is show that the act was committed. Strict liabity tends to be used most for civil ordinances: things like not mowing the lawn or failure to file a permit before renovation work. Small stuff that's just a fine. The one exception in must US jurisdictions is statutory rape. In ohio, sex with a minor under 16 but over 12 is a normal crime. If you pick up a 15 year old at a bar, and have sex with her, you can still argue lack of intent to commit the crime: you thought she was 18! If the victim is 12 or younger, there is no defense due to intent. If you have sex with an 11 year old, and the state can prove it, it simply does not matter why you did that.

Strict liability arises, not from criminal common law, but in torts. Certain activities are considered so dangerous, that there is no need to prove negligence if you are hurt by them: the defendant simply has to compensate. Things like pile driving, dam building, fumigation, keeping wild animals, etc. It makes sense in tort law (because you can always get liability insurance) , but in terms of criminal law it ignores the possibility that there could be a wacky case. Nobody in the UK justice system thinks sending this guy to jail is a good thing, I'm sure.