Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

How do criminals get away with murder?

Options
  • 19-02-2010 6:12pm
    #1
    paky
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,138 ✭✭✭


    In Limerick there is a notorious criminal gang, I shall not name them.

    They are the number one suspects in a number of murders yet it cannot be proven that they were involved since the murders have not yet been solved.

    I was just wondering how they get away with it. When a suspect is arrested what do the criminals do during questioning? Do they remain silent? Or must they speak and co operate?


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    sparkling sea
    Registered Users Posts: 1,410 ✭✭✭sparkling sea


    paky wrote: »
    In Limerick there is a notorious criminal gang, I shall not name them.

    They are the number one suspects in a number of murders yet it cannot be proven that they were involved since the murders have not yet been solved.

    I was just wondering how they get away with it. When a suspect is arrested what do the criminals do during questioning? Do they remain silent? Or must they speak and co operate?

    They remain silent and they know everyloop hole in every peace of legislation. You always have the right to remain silent, although I think that some inference may be drawn from this in very limited circumstances.

    Criminals also know that on top of criminal law and constitutional law, the prosecution also has to operate with the limits of evidence law - and specifically the exclusionary rules within evidence law.

    One of these exclusionary rules in evidence law allows for excluding evidence of an accused's bad character. This exists to prevent the jury being unduly influenced by evidence that may be highly prejudicial. At present evidence of the accused's bad character can generally only be introduced if its value or relevance is so high as to outweigh its prejudicial value.
    Even then, section 1of the Criminal Justice (Evidence) Act 1924, make provision whereby in certain circumstances an accused who testifies may be asked about his bad character. Over the years, case law has developed and finely honed this legislation and has led to a complex set of rules and exceptions.
    In effect, in most cases the accused can choose to conceal the fact that he is of bad character or has serious previous convictions from the jury or the judge when it is in the great majority of cases the function of the jury or judge to assess his credibility as a witness.
    So the jury may think that x is a member of a criminal gang but they will find it hard to get supporting evidence of this in a court of law


Advertisement