Earthing a water pipe??

[JohnW2]

I think the fear of getting caught is the main deterrent, so, if there is no chance of getting caught unless someone dies then there is hardly any deterrent.

Sure, that is really a variant of what I said - that severity of penalties probably does not have much deterrent effect since so many people who break the law seem to assume that they won't get caught. You are, I assume, suggesting that there is little deterrence because there really is very little chance of getting caught. I went a bit further and suggested that even if the reality were that they were quite likely to get caught, many of them would probably continue to believe that "it )getting caught) was not going to happen then.

The only attempt at a solution would presumably be to first change 'the system' so that many did get caught ('much more policing') and then to prosecute lots of people and give them 'substantial' (but not draconian!) sentences and widely publicise the fact that such was happening. It is just possible that at least some would then realise that 'they might get caught', and hence feel somewhat deterred. However, I'm not convinced that even that would change all that much. A substantial proportion of murderers, bank robbers, rapists etc. do get caught, followed by high-profile trials, but that doesn't seem to stop a good few others continuing to believe that they will not get caught.

After all, the only illegal electrical thing one can be charged with regarding installations is not notifying the LA for very few types of work.

As stillp has pointed out, much more important than that would be prosecution for non-compliance with Part P - and such non-compliance could presumably be argued in relation to almost any type of 'electrical incompetence'.

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

I went a bit further and suggested that even if the reality were that they were quite likely to get caught, many of them would probably continue to believe that "it )getting caught) was not going to happen then.

Yes, but obviously less so.

The only attempt at a solution would presumably be to first change 'the system' so that many did get caught ('much more policing') and then to prosecute lots of people and give them 'substantial' (but not draconian!) sentences and widely publicise the fact that such was happening. It is just possible that at least some would then realise that 'they might get caught', and hence feel somewhat deterred. However, I'm not convinced that even that would change all that much.

...but that's not going to happen.

A substantial proportion of murderers, bank robbers, rapists etc. do get caught, followed by high-profile trials, but that doesn't seem to stop a good few others continuing to believe that they will not get caught.

I suppose that is true, but
murderers - very few actually planned.
bank robbers - the reward may make the gamble attractive and I would assume that they think they can outwit the police.
rapists - random attacks? - I imagine they don't give it a thought or 'can't help it'.
They may not be the best examples as it is probably not because they don't care (about their work) or are skimping doing a good job.

As stillp has pointed out, much more important than that would be prosecution for non-compliance with Part P - and such non-compliance could presumably be argued in relation to almost any type of 'electrical incompetence'.

Yes, I had forgotten about that.

Have there been any prosecutions not the result of tragic consequences?

 

[JohnW2]

...but that's not going to happen.

Probably not, but only because 'they' have created a law (Part P) but seem to be taking no steps to 'police' compliance with it. Many trades and professions are subject to audit of their work, but it seems that it has been decided not to do this in relation to Part P.

Have there been any prosecutions not the result of tragic consequences?

I've no idea, but I certainly haven't heard of any. It would be no great surprise if there were none since, in the absence of that 'policing', it's pretty unlikely that non-compliance would come to the attention of someone who might prosecute them.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

murderers - very few actually planned

Isn't planning part of the definition of murder?

 

[JohnW2]

Isn't planning part of the definition of murder?

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand from people who are, contrary to a common misapprehension, "premeditation" is not a necessary condition being required for murder. My understanding (from the same sources) is that, in most cases, the only real 'requirement' (which I think distinguishes it from manslaughter) is that, at the time (and it could be 'on the spur of the moment') there was an intention to cause serious injury or death (not necessarily a intention specifically to cause death).

Kind Regards, John

 

[winston1]

Sure, that is really a variant of what I said - that severity of penalties probably does not have much deterrent effect since so many people who break the law seem to assume that they won't get caught.

Well in Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you get caught stealing.
In Saudi Arabia you can leave you car unlocked with valuables on the seat, window open, and they will still be there when you get back.

So what is the deterrent there?

 

[JohnW2]

Well in Saudi Arabia they cut your hand off if you get caught stealing.
In Saudi Arabia you can leave you car unlocked with valuables on the seat, window open, and they will still be there when you get back.

Indeed so, and things were also pretty brutal here just a couple of centuries ago. However, even if such things do undoubtedly deter, as I previously wrote ....

... Assuming that we don't want to return to the days as death, torture and mutilation as possible penalties ....

Were that assumption incorrect, then things would obviously be different - is that what you would like?

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

In Saudi Arabia you can leave you car unlocked with valuables on the seat, window open, and they will still be there when you get back.

I was in red China with an American colleague in the eighties, and he left a very expensive Nikon 35mm camera on a wall in Guanzhou, just before we flew to Wuhan. Three weeks later we returned to Guanzhou and the camera was still there! We were told that 'having the property of a foreigner in one's possession' is a capital offence, so no-one would even take it to a police station.

 

[JohnD]

in Saudi Arabia other crimes may go unpunished

 

[stillp]

I'm no lawyer, but what I understand from people who are, contrary to a common misapprehension, "premeditation" is not a necessary condition being required for murder. My understanding (from the same sources) is that, in most cases, the only real 'requirement' (which I think distinguishes it from manslaughter) is that, at the time (and it could be 'on the spur of the moment') there was an intention to cause serious injury or death (not necessarily a intention specifically to cause death).

Hard to have an intent without some degree of premeditation though!

 

[JohnW2]

Hard to have an intent without some degree of premeditation though!

As I said, I'm no lawyer and am merely passing on what I have been told. Although what you say is probably literally true in terms of the words, I think the point is that (contrary to what many believe), there does not have to be an appreciable period of 'premeditation' (i.e. 'planning').

One example I remember being given was that of someone who had just witnessed someone doing serious harm (maybe even killing) their child or pet, and who, on the spur of the moment, impulsively attacked the perpetrator with the intent of inflicting 'serious harm' (not necessarily death). If that person died, that 'intent' would technically make it murder (although there would clearly be quite a bit to be said in mitigation), even though the period of 'premeditation' may only have been seconds, or perhaps even a fraction of a second.

Whether that is actually true, I am not qualified to judge. For what it's worth, having just looked, it seems consistent with what the Wikipedia says.

Kind Regards, John

 

[stillp]

it seems consistent with what the Wikipedia says

Oh well, it must be true then!

I'd guess this is one of the grey areas in law - whether a few seconds, or fractions of a second, is long enough to demonstrate intent.
I'll have to ask the QC I occasionally work with. Whether or not I'll get a definite answer...

 

[JohnW2]

I'd guess this is one of the grey areas in law - whether a few seconds, or fractions of a second, is long enough to demonstrate intent.

I get the impression that in cases in which there was not clear advanced premeditation/planning (i.e. starting an appreciable time before the killing), "intent" is taken to mean simply what it says, and is (and probably can only be) 'demonstrated' by an admission from the accused (otherwise a Court cannot know 'what was in their head') - e.g. "He beat my cat to death so I felt that I had to kick him until a lot of his bones were broken, and that's what I did".

I'll have to ask the QC I occasionally work with. Whether or not I'll get a definite answer...

You may do, but it could different from the 'answer' (opinion) I got from the QC I asked - such are barristers and even their written deliberations on a matter are called "Opinions".

Kind Regards, John

 

[EFLImpudence]

What about an armed bank robber who soots and kills someone but did not 'intend' to do it?

 

[stillp]

Why was he armed, if he didn't intend to use it?