I've been reading in the New York Times about the New York city cop, Gilberto Valle, who has been charged with conspiracy to kidnap, rape, kill and cannibalize women. That is not very nice Gilberto! You and that ex LA. cop are giving cops a bad name this month. From your picture you look normal
and well fed. I guess you never know.
I am fascinated by the legal aspect of when does chatting on the World Wide Web actually become a crime. Now I'm no lawyer -well actually I am -(I just like that figure of speech) so I know that there has to be both a mens rea- (guilty mind) and actus reus-( guilty action). Yes, it is creepy to the max for him and these other internet dudes to be even fantasizing and putting into writing these horrific ideas but when does it cross the line? To be convicted of a "conspiracy" (now I'm no criminal lawyer- that part is right) my understanding is that there must be an agreement between two or more parties to commit a crime of some type in the future and some overt act in furtherance of the agreement. His defence is that it was just pretend-a fantasy if you will. This is some messed up fantasy. The prosecution says- it is very real-that the accused discussed a "specific real woman that he knew and was discussing the logistics of fitting her into an oven". Working out the logistics of fitting her in an oven- do you mind? Really the whole thing is do you mind? He has pleaded not guilty. I will continue to read with interest.
Two cannibals were eating this clown that they had boiled for dinner- one turns to the other and says "does this taste funny to you?"
Honestly I think you should keep well away from the dark corners of the internet. It's all bad enough, endless winter etc etc and now this.
ReplyDeleteI get that you are fascinated by the law but you are going to give yourself nightmares! I wish you hadn't pointed out the well fed bit!
The problem is that after 9/11 - there have been many exceptions made about possible planning even if it wasn't necessarily agreed upon bc there is a latent understanding that in certain cases - there is a greater cause that is automatically insinuated.
ReplyDeleteNow i never practiced law in the states but there are certain leakages i see that seep through and color arguments.
Scotland yard seem to look at forums all the time and that is enough to be on an alert list - now I know this is not of a terrorist - in the macro sense - but now the government choose to use it at their discretion or benefit - as in the Julian Assange case.
Will be interesting to see how it all ends as it will be act as a precedent for sure.
Good point about 9/11. Do you practice law in the UK? I wonder what the laws of conspiracy are in your jurisdiction. Do you know?
ReplyDeleteHi again, I studied law here but practiced in Australia but funny enough might start again...
ReplyDeleteI will find out and get some concrete examples but the police have so many powers based on suspicion alone. Under the veil of terrorism one can be held for 7 days without legal aid...and of course these powers are quite comfy within its realms. But let me get back to you especially as it seems this case is ongoing!
Thanks- look forward to hearing more.
ReplyDeleteB-lovely, you said a mouthful!
ReplyDeleteI'm very interested in the problems involved in balancing public interests. I guess the public interest under threat here is being able to document realistic criminal fantasies (regardless of whether or not he was planning to execute it in this case). Imagine jokes about really disliking the government getting pulled into that class... that would be scary.
And what do you think of this, B Lovely? http://www2.macleans.ca/2013/03/08/tom-flanagans-defenders-speak-up/
ReplyDelete