10 Aug 05
In the UK the Police must use the Police and criminal evidence Act 1984, (PACE) when they question a person about a crime, the person might be a bad criminal but he has many rights, however the victim of the crime has no rights whatsoever as there is no Victim and evidence act, therefor the Police can and do repress victims...
The Police say they have got to mutch papper work to do as each arrest takes one or more officers off the beat for several hours because they have to do their own paper work.
I just think that it is a daft way to run a Police force after all what would happen in war if a soldier had to spend half of the day typing and half defending his country
Why cant they employ people to do the paper work for the Police officers who should be on the beat.
Do the Police act the same in other countrys or do they do a better job
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by kellsyWhat "rights" do you think "criminals" have that victims lack?
In the UK the Police must use the Police and criminal evidence Act 1984, (PACE) when they question a person about a crime, the person might be a bad criminal but he has many rights, however the victim of the crime has no rights whatsoever as there is no Victim and evidence act, therefor the Police can and do repress victims...
The Police say they have got ...[text shortened]... hould be on the beat.
Do the Police act the same in other countrys or do they do a better job
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by kellsyThere'd be fewer wars, and the ones there were would be about who got to sit closest to the stationery cupboard?
I just think that it is a daft way to run a Police force after all what would happen in war if a soldier had to spend half of the day typing and half defending his country
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by angie88Because he was referring to suspects as "criminals" when it is the whole purpose of the criminal justice system to decide who is a criminal and who is not (a decision not merely left to the police). Generally, but not always, one can tell who a victim of a crime is but it is a far more difficult thing to determine who is a "criminal".
just out of curiosity... why do you put "criminals" in quotation marks, but "victims" not?
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by kellsyThe reason why people under arrest have rights is because at that stage they are suspects and may not be the people responsible for the crime. They don't become criminals until convicted. That way, the hope is that you don't end up with lots of innocent people in prison.
In the UK the Police must use the Police and criminal evidence Act 1984, (PACE) when they question a person about a crime, the person might be a bad criminal but he has many rights, however the victim of the crime has no rights whatsoever as there is no Victim and evidence act, therefor the Police can and do repress victims...
The Police say they have got ...[text shortened]... hould be on the beat.
Do the Police act the same in other countrys or do they do a better job
The victim of the crime does have rights, the most obvious one being the right not to have the crime perpetrated against them in the first place. They also have the right to make a claim for compensation, which comes from the state if they can't find the person responsible. They can get councilling for cases that need it. One right the victim doesn't have is to have the person arrested locked away for ever soley on their say so. This keeps prison numbers down.
The reason the police officers who have made the arrest have to do their own paper work is that they are the ones who made the arrest and done whatever investigation there was to be done; this makes them the best people to write the report. The paper work would probably take them less time if they took the trouble to learn to type with more than two fingers.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by DeepThoughtThank you Deep Thought for that information, it makes a lot of sence.🙂
The reason why people under arrest have rights is because at that stage they are suspects and may not be the people responsible for the crime. They don't become criminals until convicted. That way, the hope is that you don't end up with lots of innocent people in prison.
The victim of the crime does have rights, the most obvious one being the righ ...[text shortened]... obably take them less time if they took the trouble to learn to type with more than two fingers.
10 Aug 05
Originally posted by no1marauderspoken like a true lawyer 😉
Because he was referring to suspects as "criminals" when it is the whole purpose of the criminal justice system to decide who is a criminal and who is not (a decision not merely left to the police). Generally, but not always, one can tell who a victim of a crime is but it is a far more difficult thing to determine who is a "criminal".
but nah, thx-made sense.
11 Aug 05
Originally posted by kellsyI agree with kellsy. Recently in Banff, a young woman was raped, beaten and left for dead. Her family lives in Ontario and had to pay their own way to Alberta to be at her side. They were not well off and have to cover their own expenses. Whearas the guy they arrested for the crime is in custody, and gets free meals and adequate living conditions. Also in Canada the living conditions in our jails are better then what a lot of honest law-abiding citizens have. That almost makes me want to commit a crime.
In the UK the Police must use the Police and criminal evidence Act 1984, (PACE) when they question a person about a crime, the person might be a bad criminal but he has many rights, however the victim of the crime has no rights whatsoever as there is no Victim and evidence act, therefor the Police can and do repress victims...
The Police say they have got ...[text shortened]... hould be on the beat.
Do the Police act the same in other countrys or do they do a better job