Quote:
Originally Posted by nicenycdick  "A preemptive conviction, if legally backed, would be justified in this case."
Preemptive conviction? In the US, the only kinds of "preemptive convictions" involve conspiracy charges...if you take some operative steps involving another person in a plan to commit a crime, then you can be charged and convicted of a crime. But you can never be charged or convicted of a crime simply because of what you say, what you write or how you believe (there are some exceptions, including crying "fire" in a crowded theatre or inciting to riot, but these are not relevant here). I can't image that British law (from which most of American flows) can be that much different! |
Since I am no expert on legal matters, and don't even know the characteristics and criteriums this special law prescribes for a conviction, PLUS the UK legal system is based on precedence, I was deliberately formulating in a vague way. Her possessing terrorism-related writings, in combination with her occupation in a security area, seems to have tipped the balance. But you are right, I miss the objective evidence for a planned crime or conspiration here, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteveHd I did a search and found a BBC piece which states she was convicted of: collecting articles "likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism". It didn't say what those articles are. If she possessed ammonium nitrate then it would be plausible.
It all looks specious to me.
|
The other option might be that she came very convenient to make an example of her and use this case to build further, future cases.