Crime and punishment

[najaB]

So, to try to summarise the discussion

A crime can be defined as...

Only the first one is technically correct.

With respect to #2 in your list - how would someone be convicted if no law has been broken?

 

[DaleCooper]

In the original thread, being rude to the OP was justified on the basis he had committed a crime, even though it was (according to the OP's evidence anyway) inadvertent.

I still maintain that was unfair.

Yes that would appear unfair but as is often pointed out, without intending to denigrate the OP, we only have one persons perception of the event.

 

[Llanigraham]

OK, where in the legal system are the words crime and criminal defined? Chapter and verse please

It wouldn't be possible to report the theft until you discovered the loss. Whether such a case has occurred or not, the TOC would be within its rights to prosecute.

I'm not anti-rail - I am anti describing someone who is the innocent victim of an event being branded a criminal.

Oh come on! You have to be joking?

CRIME : an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.
CRIMINAL : an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law, relating to crime.

A crime can be reported at any time. It only needs a call on a mobile phone to 999/101 to do so.

Your example is fatuous!! If someone on a train has their wallet stolen I am quite sure that the first thing they are going to do is report it to a member of staff, either on the train or at the first station they came to.

And yes this whole thread is being anti-rail! (as usual)

And today I was a criminal, since I parked on double yellow lines without getting a ticket, and I broke the speed limit.

 

[DaleCooper]

And yes this whole thread is being anti-rail! (as usual)

Only a small part of the thread.

 

[Romilly]

CRIME : an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law.

This is probably too loose a definition. For example, failure to lodge an online tax return by close on 31st January is punishable, if you are required to lodge a return, by law with a £100 penalty in the first instance. But this is seen as being a civil offence/penalty (and would end up being disputed in the Tax Chamber of the First-tier Tribunal).

 

[Sleepy]

Wonder how many people have been prosecuted for smoking on platforms ?

 

[ComUtoR]

(so a burglar who has not been caught is not a criminal)

No, they are still a criminal.

3. An offence which has led to a conviction and will show up on a DBS (CRB) check, thus being evidence of a person having "bad character" and may be taken into account in a decision as to whether to employ them.

Having criminal record doesn't mean you are a bad character. That is a massive assumption and rather bigoted. Is a woman who steals a loaf of bread for her children a "bad character" ?

Also with the rehabilitation of offenders act we should be treating those with a "criminal past" better than a blanket your a scumbag bad character approach. There is also a difference in CRB checks as some crimes are not listed on the standard one.

However; if I was a bank manager due diligence would be to not employ someone with a conviction for money laundering. However; a criminal offence related to Driving is less relevant.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

That's your interpretation, which means that someone who has their wallet stolen (if it contains a train ticket), has committed a crime and is a criminal.

You've posted this remark a few times now and I can't let you keep repeating it. It is wrong.
I had hoped the information already provided to you would have explained why it is wrong. But whether it has or not, please don't keep repeating it.

 

[exile]

You've posted this remark a few times now and I can't let you keep repeating it. It is wrong.
I had hoped the information already provided to you would have explained why it is wrong. But whether it has or not, please don't keep repeating it.

I disagree with the "information" (actually, an opinion - yes, and everything I have posted is also an opinion).

Of course the act of having a wallet stolen is not a crime, but it automatically puts you in breach of 18.2 should you come across a revenue inspector before you have the chance to report the loss or theft, and the caveats attached to bylaw 18 do not apply.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Only the first one is technically correct.

With respect to #2 in your list - how would someone be convicted if no law has been broken?

If a bylaw or regulation has been broken (that is, something that does not appear in an Act of Parliament).

Oh, and the definition of "crime" is not a simple matter - http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawintro.html#intro3
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes that would appear unfair but as is often pointed out, without intending to denigrate the OP, we only have one persons perception of the event.

It is, however, not possible to be sure the OP is lying. Certainly, no one was surprised at him being "done" under 18.2 having lost a ticket that he could prove had been purchased.

 

[DaleCooper]

It is, however, not possible to be sure the OP is lying. Certainly, no one was surprised at him being "done" under 18.2 having lost a ticket that he could prove had been purchased.

I do not think the OP was lying and was careful in my choice of words.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, and the definition of "crime" is not a simple matter - http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/lawintro.html#intro3
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We are not seeking a philosopher's definition of the word "crime" all we need be concerned about is what legislation defines as a criminal act.

 

[exile]

I do not think the OP was lying and was careful in my choice of words.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


We are not seeking a philosopher's definition of the word "crime" all we need be concerned about is what legislation defines as a criminal act.

Really? Why? When the post arose from the OP being given a hard time on the basis he'd committed a crime.

 

[DaleCooper]

Really? Why? When the post arose from the OP being given a hard time on the basis he'd committed a crime.

A crime as defined by legislation, not "crime" as a philosophical concept.

 

[sheff1]

I suggest that you do some research into the British Legal system before carrying on with this "discussion".

I would, but a later post says:

Worth noting there is of course no such thing as the "British Legal system"!

Confusing.

 

[londiscape]

I agree with exile that this is unfair. IMO it is a matter of manifest moral unfairness that the Railway Byelaws continue to exist in their current form. Strict liability criminal offences are justifiable where their purpose is to protect the general public against serious injury or loss of life (eg. motoring safety, or food safety etc), and where undertaking the activity that could lead to the offence requires the person to be reasonably qualified to do so (ie. having passed a driving test or holding a food safety certificate). It is not justifiable for ticketing matters where a person does not intend to act dishonestly.

However, in the current situation we are where we are and it is helpful to those seeking advice that they be made aware, as part of that advice, of the status of the offences with which they may be charged, that they are offences under criminal statute, and the potential penalties. Most posts I read on here attempt to do so with a degree of objectivity and sensitivity, even though there are a minority who appear to take pleasure in berating people, usually as a result of an OP showing the slightest degree of indignance at having been subjected to such treatment by the TOC or TOCs in question.

Perhaps it would be for another thread to discuss methods by which we might advocate politically for the abolition of the Byelaws (or at least Byelaw 18)?

And I do not see why it is in the slightest bit "anti-rail" to disagree that those who unintentionally find themselves in breach of ticketing regulations should be subjected to any kind of criminal sanction.

 

[najaB]

Confusing.

British legal systems. Though, when it comes to railway prosecutions, you really only need to concern yourself with England and Wales.