Reservists beat homeless man to death (allegedly) - II

The bargain is that they were offered (and took) a *manslaughter* plea-bargain, a lower charge than that of 2nd degree murder, which acknowledges intention (but not premeditation), as opposed to, for instance, running over someone because you are using your cell phone or something, which would be treated as manslaughter. [url=http://www.owjn.org/info/murder.htm]Look it up.[/url]
This saved the Armed Forces an embarrassing public trial. Interesting that the accused were not allowed to attend their hearing in uniform. Full damage control obviously in action.

[ 17 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

I disagree. The sentencing recommendation doesn't enter the equation. The bargain is
a) Crown reduces the charge to manslaughter despite major evidence of intention that would have made a 2nd degree murder charge a cinch.
b) The accused plead guilty.
The Crown and the Defence will enter sentencing suggestions, of course, or even a common one, and the judge will decide within or without that bracket. But the bargain is closed when the Crown and the accused agree to plea-bargain a reduced charge rather than to go to trial and try for what the judge himself called "true verdicts," above.

[ 17 April 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]a) Crown reduces the charge to manslaughter despite major evidence of intention that would have made a 2nd degree murder charge a cinch.
[/b]

---

?? The Crown expressly justified the plea bargain on the basis that they didn't think they could prove the requisite intention to support a murder conviction.

If they had thought they could, why would the Crown even consider reducing the charge to manslaughter? The worst result that could possibly occur (assuming outright acquittal is a non-starter) is that the jury would come back with a manslaughter verdict anyway.

And my point is that that's not the way it works in reality. You don't know what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]Plea-bargains are entered because:
a) trials cost a lot of money and take up a lot of time...
b) the Crown hates the mere possibility of losing a case...
but also,
b) when the accused has worth and the victim doesn't (being homeless or a battered or murdered wife, for instance), the ideology says the accused has been "punished enough" by public censure and any conviction will do;
but particularly,
c) in this specific case, the State's interest is NOT in putting soldiers on public trial for murderous behavior at the time of a very impopular "mission".[/b]

---

All of which are reasons why a plea bargain may be acceptable to [b]the Crown.[/b]

But as I keep trying to impress on you, the plea bargain has to be acceptable to [b]the accused[/b] as well - otherwise there's no bargain. The maximum penalty for manslaughter is the same as for Murder Two - life (except for having to wait 10 years to apply for parole in the case of murder). The accused is not going to say "I'm not guilty of Murder Two but I am guilty of manslaughter" without some assurance that his sentence will be significantly less severe as a result.

Sentencing takes into consideration all the facts of the case, and without an agreement on sentencing, the Crown could argue, and the Court could agree, that there were sufficient aggravating factors present to justify a harsher than average sentence. Particularly, if the judge thought the Murder Two verdict would likely have stuck if the trial had continued, he may well be disposed to pass a harsh sentence.

No, my rhetorical question was to ask why the Crown would even consider reducing the charge to manslaughter [b]if, as you wrongly maintained, they thought they had a slam-dunk case for second-degree murder.[/b]

It's certainly not hard to see how the Crown would go for a guilty plea on manslaughter [b]if, as is actually the case, they believed they could not prove intent beyond a reasonable doubt.[/b]

What's hard to see is why anyone with competent legal advice (as these accused had) would plead guilty to manslaughter in circumstances where even the Crown believed that a manslaughter conviction was the worst outcome of the trial for the accused, unless they were assured of receiving a lighter sentence in exchange for a guilty plea. I'm sure, in fact that that's what happened.

Your theory makes no sense at all.

You mean something like "Reservists repeatedly trip over homeless man, unintentionally causing his death"?