Should criminals be allowed to sue their victims?

[Oakey]

I think there's a state in the US where criminals waive their 'rights' the moment they commit a crime. Thereofre if they decide to burgle someone's house and fell on some kitchen knife, got shot or injured themselves on some barbed wire, they have no right to sue.

i don't think criminals should be allowed to sue their victims, no. for example, when I read in the paper about burglars suing for cutting themselves on barbed wire when they're trying to get away. Or suing because the person they were attacking / mugging got the upper hand and beat the crap out of them. No, they shouldn't have any rights. Obviously there's no mistake they're comitting a crime.

Walking across a farmer's land is different. You may not know it's private land, the farmer shouldn't decide to beat the crap out of you because it's unlikely you're causing him any danger.

[DaBeeeenster]

Walking across a farmer's land is different. You may not know it's private land, the farmer shouldn't decide to beat the crap out of you because it's unlikely you're causing him any danger.

And for that reason you have to allow it to go to court. If you dont, who is going to make the decision of a claim's legitimacy? If the case is open and shut (e.g a burgler falling down the stairs while burgling a house) it will be thrown out of court in minutes.

The current system is fair. It is the tabloid press that have made it out to be some sort of criminal cash-generating device. The only reason they pressed on the story of Tony Martin is because it sold copy.

Notice how Fearon has dropped his claim.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/News/...A54%3A13%3A817

[Saracen]

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
And for that reason you have to allow it to go to court. If you dont, who is going to make the decision of a claim's legitimacy? If the case is open and shut (e.g a burgler falling down the stairs while burgling a house) it will be thrown out of court in minutes.

The current system is fair. It is the tabloid press that have made it out to be some sort of criminal cash-generating device. The only reason they pressed on the story of Tony Martin is because it sold copy.

Notice how Fearon has dropped his claim.

http://www.edp24.co.uk/content/News/...A54%3A13%3A817

I suppose anyone should be entitled to have their day in court, but that doesn't mean the public should be expected to pick up the bill for it.

So far as I'm concerned, Fearon got his injuries while committing a fairly serious (and arrestable) criminal act - for which he subsequently was convicted. At that time, in my view, he loses the right to sue for those injuries. Had he not burgled Martin, he would not have been injured. He got injured only because he chose to commit a crime.

Even if he is entitled to sue, he should not have been granted legal aid to do so.

[DaBeeeenster]

Originally posted by Saracen
I suppose anyone should be entitled to have their day in court, but that doesn't mean the public should be expected to pick up the bill for it.

So far as I'm concerned, Fearon got his injuries while committing a fairly serious (and arrestable) criminal act - for which he subsequently was convicted. At that time, in my view, he loses the right to sue for those injuries. Had he not burgled Martin, he would not have been injured. He got injured only because he chose to commit a crime.

Even if he is entitled to sue, he should not have been granted legal aid to do so.

I think this is a seperate argument. Whether he should be given legal aid or not is a seperate argument. Should his rights be waived on account of him committing a crime? I think not.

I refer to my trespassing argument. Should someone trespassing on land have their rights waived? Even if they are unaware of the land ownership? I know this is an extreme example, but if rights are waived on account of illegal activity, there will be all sorts of situations that lie in between these two examples that will be a LOT harder to classify.

[Saracen]

I understand the point you're making, Ben, and to a point, agree. It would not be right to deny someone protection of the law because of some minor, and especially unintentional, offence.

But I only agree up to a point. It might well be possible to trespass without realising it, but it's difficult to break into someones house in the middle of the night without realising it .

That's why I said anyone committing a fairly serious offence ought to lose their right to sue for anything they suffer as a result of committing that offence. Of course, "fairly serious" is a bit vague and would need nailing down, but that could be done. One way to classify this would be, as I said, to limit such exclusion to arrestable offences. There are a good many acts that are criminal, but not arrestable, offences. As I understand it, simple trespass is certainly not arrestable and, from memory, is not even criminal, but a civil offence (I could be wrong on that, though). If you compound the trepass with other offences, like criminal damage, then I think it does become arrestable, but simple trespass (IIRC) is not.

Of course, the definition could be otherwise defined. It could be offences that involved criminal acts against another person, or it could be a specific list ...... if you commit this, that or the other ...... and so on.

Another method of definition would be via mens rea. I don't know if you understand the principle, but in almost all (or all) cases of a criminal offence being committed, one element that must be present is the mens rea (state of mind).

There are varous levels of mens rea. Specifically, :-

• intent - this one is obvious ... you thought about it, and deliberately decided to do it.
  
• recklessness - there are different types of recklessness, defined usually by the case law that outlined the definitions, but essentially, it is doing something with disregard for the consequences. Objective (Caldwell) recklessness and Subjective (Cunningham) recklessness are rpobably the two primary cases.
  
• negligence - where you know you owe a duty of care, and fail to meet reasonable standards. You might set out to commit an offence, but exercise insufficient care in ensuring you do not.
  
• specific liability - the law exists and merely breaking it is sufficient. This is the case with many traffic offences, and is primarily only applicable to relatively minor offences.

One definition that could be used in such circumstances would be that to waive your rights by committing a criminal offence, there must have been intent or recklessness.

Anyway, the point I'm making is that such provisions to deem someone as having waived their rights could be phrased so as to preclude the type of minor offence you mention, while still leaving deliberate and callous acts, like burglary, included. That's just the mechanics of the terminology, but doesn't affect what I believe should be the basic principle.

But, at the end of the day, for a burglar to sue the person he was burgling makes a total complete and utter farce of what most people would consider justice.

Originally posted by DaBeeeenster
Should his rights be waived on account of him committing a crime? I think not.

Subject to the above qualifications about circumstances, absolutely, yes they should be waived.

In my mind, it's clear. Fearon quite deliberately set out to burgle Martin, and .... had he not done so ...... he would not have been hurt. Therefore, because the injury ONLY occured because he quite deliberately and knowingly set out to commit a criminal offence, he should have no right to recompense for his injuries.

Regardless of the general case, and concerns over trespass, etc, Ben, do you feel Fearon should be allowed to sue Martin?


Also, in my mind, the legal aid issue is not entirely separate, precisely because public funds are being used to assist someone who was injured because they decided, quite deliberately, to commit a criminal offence.

One final point ..... I don't know if it is the case or not, but when making a claim for legal aid, it ought to be the case that the claims and statements you make are under oath and under threat of perjury. If, as seems to be the case here, you lie your ass off to get legal aid, then there ought to be consequences for that. My bet is that Fearon having dropped the case, the Legal Aid board will quietly let this go away and they damn well didn't ought to.

[shiato storm]

as soon as a criminal breaks the law all their rights should be forfit...
hence he was to sue his victim.../wheres the justice in that?

[DaBeeeenster]

I agree with the legal aid perspective Saracen, but I really dont think that you can make a clear cut distinction between different offences. Every case is different and as a result I really do believe that they should all be heard on their own merits. If that means every case being heard by a judge, so be it. We are a rich country and we can afford such things in the pursuit of justice.

[Saracen]

We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I think that as soon as someone makes a conscious decision to go out and commit a criminal act, they should lose all right to take action against the person they commit that criminal act against - i.e. the victim. The logic is simple - had they not chosen to commit that criminal act, they would not have been injured. Therefore, their injury is entirely within their own power to avoid, simply by obeying the law. That alone is enough for society to refuse to even countenance the possibility of them suing the person they victimised.

[DaBeeeenster]

I agree with you mate, I really do.

The question is, who is to decide whether a conscious decision was made or not?

[Saracen]

Well, in Fearon's case, the criminal court that convicted him of burgling Tony Martin.

At an abstract level, I suppose there are many, many cases where the facts speak for themselves. If you are caught in someones house in the middle of the night, wearing gloves and carrying a bag marked "swag", it's kinnd of hard to argue that you were sleep-walking

Perhaps a trbunal, like a committal hearing, could establish that there was a prima facie case to answer.

My anger over this point is directled largely at the fact that the Legal Aid board approved public funds for THIS case, DESPITE Fearon having the criminal conviction forthe burglary. In THIS particular case, there is no doubt at all that a conscious decision was made - or there would have been no burglary conviction.

By extension, therefore, anyone with a conviction (over the incident in question, I'm not suggesting that someone with a burglary conviction 5 years ago can't sue for something that happened lastweek) is ineligible to sue to injuries received during the act for which they were convicted.

If someone has a conviction for a specific act, during which something happened that theymight normally have a right to sue over, then that right to sue ought to be removed specifically because that injury was received during the commission of a criminal act. There did not ought to be the ability to sue once convicted.

UNTIL there is a conviction, then the presumption of innocence has, I suppose, to reign. If a lawsuit is underway when the conviction occurs, then the lawsuit ought to be dismissed out of hand and the criminal required to pay all legal fees, for both parties, incurred to that point.

Even then, there is the chanvce that someone that actually committed a burglary (for instance) could sue their victim, but unless the fact that they did it can be proved, we should not prevent them taking action.

However, the facts of the alleged criminal act also ought to be part of the evidence presented in the lawsuit. If a burglar, for instance, claims I attacked him and left him injured and unable to work (work! work!!! Fearon .... work!!!. What a farce THAT concept is) then he needs to be able to provide a convincing explanation of what he was doing in my house in the middle of the night.

There are, of course, people that DO have a legitimate right to be in my house, without my permission, in the middle of the night. Fireman putting out a fire or rescuing my ass for one, but there are other similar examples.

But so far as taking a lawsuit against a property holder, for instance, the balance ought, I feel, to be on the person suing to demonstrate that he had legitimate cause to be in the house in the first place. And if he doesn't have, or can't demonstrate that he DOES have, then .... case dismissed.

Cases like Fearon's, where he was quite evidently burgling the place, never ought to get to the point of wasting a court's time and to get legal aid to pursue such a case is (as you agree) an insult and affront to all those that genuinely do have need of legal aid.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Saracen
However, the facts of the alleged criminal act also ought to be part of the evidence presented in the lawsuit. If a burglar, for instance, claims I attacked him and left him injured and unable to work (work! work!!! Fearon .... work!!!. What a farce THAT concept is) then he needs to be able to provide a convincing explanation of what he was doing in my house in the middle of the night.

Maybe he was a house alarm salesman and was trying to get his sales figures up!

[Blub2k]

Was it necessary to shoot a burglar to remove him from his house? Is that farmers house worth more than a human life? That farmer should still be in jail he is a murderer, all necessary means are what the law lays at your disposal when removing an intruder, Martin stepped over the line when he shot the guy, I have no sympathy and think that the crim should have a right to rebuttal as that is justice for all.

[steve threlfall]

Originally posted by Blub2k
Was it necessary to shoot a burglar to remove him from his house? Is that farmers house worth more than a human life? That farmer should still be in jail he is a murderer, all necessary means are what the law lays at your disposal when removing an intruder, Martin stepped over the line when he shot the guy, I have no sympathy and think that the crim should have a right to rebuttal as that is justice for all.

Well... it has now been proved that the criminal was lying about the injuries he has or rather has not sustained so he definately cant sue now.

How shameful that it takes a tabloid newspaper to make sure that justice is done

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Blub2k
Was it necessary to shoot a burglar to remove him from his house? Is that farmers house worth more than a human life? That farmer should still be in jail he is a murderer, all necessary means are what the law lays at your disposal when removing an intruder, Martin stepped over the line when he shot the guy, I have no sympathy and think that the crim should have a right to rebuttal as that is justice for all.

I think you'll fnd that many people would agree with Tony Martin and say that they would have done the same thing.

[Saracen]

Originally posted by Blub2k
Was it necessary to shoot a burglar to remove him from his house?

Without having been there, we really have no way to know for sure. I doubt anyone here at these forums even attended the trial and read all the evidence - which makes it VERY hard to make any firm pronouncements as to what we would have done in the same circumstances - since we don't fully understand the circumstances.

Originally posted by Blub2k
That farmer should still be in jail he is a murderer, all necessary means are what the law lays at your disposal when removing an intruder, Martin stepped over the line when he shot the guy, I have no sympathy and think that the crim should have a right to rebuttal as that is justice for all.

First off, legally, Martin is NOT a murderer. The murder conviction was overturned on appeal - a decision I competely agree with though personally, I would have done it for different reasons than the appeal court judges.

As a matter of law, you are emphatically NOT allowed to use "all necessary means". If you were, Martin would never have been brought to trial. What you are allowed to use is "reasonable force". The problem is ....what is "reasonable?"

Defining "reasonable" is, legally, quite complex and I won't bother to go into it again, but suffice it to say it is rather more involved than what you or I might regard as "reasonable" - especially since there is a good chance that we wouldn't agree on what "reasonable" is. That is why so many laws use terms like "reasonable" ... because at the end of the day, "reasonable" depends on circumstances and is whatever your lawyer can convince the court it is, given the circumstances.

Is shooting someone that's burgling your house "reasonable?"


Scenario 1). You hear burglars in you house in the middle of the night. You investigate and find a couple of 12-year old kids who immediately run away. Shooting them is very far from reasonable.

Scenario 2) You hear burglars in you house in the middle of the night. You investigate and find a couple of hard cases, one of whom is carrying a pistol. The other yells "Shoot him, Dave" and the thug with the gun swings round and starts to raise the gun in your direction. Is shooting him "reasonable". Legally, it sure as hell is!

We don't know for sure what happened in the Martin case, as we weren't there. The prosecution would have us believe that Martin laid in wait and set up a deliberate ambush. If true, THAT would be murder. The defence would have us believe that Martin fired not even aiming specifically at the intruders, but in response to having a torch shone in his face. Martin doesn't, he claims, even remember for sure firing more than once yet we know there were certainly three shots, and possibly more. Did he panic? Did he believe, reasonably, that he was in imminent danger? If so, then it is self-defence and he should never have been jailed at all.

I suspect, personally, that the truth lies somewhere in-between.

Bear in mind that Fearon had every choice in the matter. He chose to drive 60-odd miles to burgle Martin, and he chose to commit burglarly. Martin didn't chose to be burgled. But for Fearon's own choices, and choices to break the law at that, he would never have been shot. He was only shot because he chose to break the law. Had he abided by the law, he would be unhurt today. Whatever else we do or do not know, we know that Martin is Fearon's victim. Yet now Fearon has the hypocrisy to sue his victim for injuries he only received because he was breaking the law. He didn't ought to get a penny (and now, it seems, won't) but more than that, burglars did not ought to be able to sue their victims because had they not been victimising their victims, they would not have been hurt. It is entirely their own fault.

It's about time the law gave a little less regard to the criminal and a little more to the victim. This kind of thing (perhaps minus the shotgun) could happen to any of us.

[Big RICHARD]

Originally posted by Saracen
Lots of waffle

OMG! You keep putting my thoughts into writing! Are you psychic? Or just a bit of a psycho???