Monday, August 04, 2008

There is only so much cake.

Reading that Josef Fritzl could also be facing slavery charges over holding his daughter in a cellar for 24 years seems to me to be egging it a bit. Read here. How much manpower is going into generating these charges?

I think the word overkill springs to mind here as at his age surely the charges he faces already will keep him behind bars until he has been dead for nearly 100 years before they start going down the road of finding new charges.

Why don't they just get him in court with the easy to prove charges, send him to jail and then get on with finding any others.

Of course if he was in the UK the most serious charge he would face would be installing electrical equipment in his house without a certificate from a qualified electrician.


At 1:57 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

The reason they HAVE to explore that charge is for the sake of creating a precedent in law if they don't, which others would be able to use if they were brought up on slavery charges under similar circumstances.

This will likely be a precedent setting case for Europe which will affect future cases.

I hope I can say that w/out being told to f*** off.

At 9:31 pm, Blogger Bag said...

Nice to see you back Anon. If that is you and not someone with the same name. :)

I understand what you are saying but it just seems to be keeping some more civil servants in jobs to me. I'm sure any other cases that come up could charge what was necessary. This guy is likely to be dead before he gets to court. Then no precedents will be set then after all.

At 11:03 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

It would not matter if he died as long as he was all ready charged.

Lawyers going for this are very clever because they are trying to cover loopholes for similar but lesser cases in the future, where this may be the only serious crime that will stick.

Besides, he kept her primarily for sexual exploitation.
What if a man held a woman hostage through fear and intimidation but not by physical restraint and she 'consented' to have sex out of fear?
Their defense would be she was free to go and to refuse sex, but with this precedent they would get severe punishment if the other charges were not successful.
Note that they are not charging him with rape? She consented out of fear/intimidation...obviously.

At 3:33 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 4:22 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

At 4:29 pm, Blogger Bag said...

What is going on? I don't want my blog used to attack others even in a very oblique way.

I've put on comment moderation now so I can filter these out.

At 5:08 pm, Blogger Colin Campbell said...

Thanks for not coderating my momments. I hate that stuff.

As anon said, there are often technical points of law that are of interest to the legal teams. On the other side there is the need for justice by aggrieved parties and resolution for families.

Complicated that legal stuff. Personally I think that he should be put in front of a Kangaroo Court ala S Hussien and strung up. Why waste money on scum like that.

At 1:10 pm, Blogger Lord James Bigglesworth said...

Didn't realize you'd stopped blogging, Bag. Need to chat about this. :)


Post a Comment

<< Home