If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
The letter of the law
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Following a recent rant by a customer about the story of the man who was fined because he hit a drug dealer who had been dealing heroin to his children, I thought there was an interesting question involved.
Tha man was protecting his children, however officially he commited a crime - assault. It has been suggested by sources as reliable and fair as the Daily Mail <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> that this is not justice, as the person he hit was a heroin dealer.
So, in cases like this do you think the courts should think about justice (whatever that may be in your eyes) or follow the letter of the law?
Tha man was protecting his children, however officially he commited a crime - assault. It has been suggested by sources as reliable and fair as the Daily Mail <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon"> that this is not justice, as the person he hit was a heroin dealer.
So, in cases like this do you think the courts should think about justice (whatever that may be in your eyes) or follow the letter of the law?
0
Comments
I trust that the police are following up on the dealer...?
Why is is ridiculous?
if not then we have....... ANARCHY
If they know hes a dealer hes going to get put away for a long time anyway.....
No, to get anarchy it would involve the removal of the heirarchal system, not just the legal system.
It is been suggested that the man should be allowed to get away with assault because the victim is a criminal himself. Surely, even as a criminal he should have protection from the law, and any fines which would be paid normally should be paid.
Yes, the man was acting to protect his children, but in doing so he broke the law. Vigilante action is frowned upon by the courts if there are other options. The man had the option to take photographs and contact the police. But because he beat the shit out of the dealer the police have no evidence that he was a dealer anyway.
Now he will have to hope that the CPS can get enough evidence from other sources, because they will be unable to use him as a witness.
Yes, and courts' views on 'other options' tend to be so out of touch with reality that even self-defence armed with a feather duster can land you in the dock. <IMG SRC="rolleyes.gif" border="0" ALT="icon">
Lets use a less emotive example. A man commits tax fraud. Walking down the street, he is assaulted. The connection isn't here as it is in the other case, but it's the same in principle. In order to be able to apply the law to him in the tax fraud case, you have to give him the protection of the law in the assault case.
To do otherwise would undermine the authority and utility of the law. You can't have it both ways. It's impossible to pick and choose which situations you will apply the law to.
Well said. The law is there to protect EVERYBODY. To deny the dealer his rights would be hypocritical, if you prosecuted him and not the attacker.
I think law should be flexible. There is no absolute right or wrong in this world, every case got to be seen its situation.
[ 16-05-2002: Message edited by: Nice Kick ]
That doesn't mean he hasn't been punished though, just that the judge has over-ruled the punishment first imposed.