If some one is tagged electronically and goes AWOL and also commits a crime, why are they not allowed to say?

in court, or at lrast the person who is supposed to be watching should also be held responsable.


http://uk.news.yahoo.com/rtrs/20071129/t...

If some one is tagged electronically and goes AWOL and also commits a crime, why are they not allowed to say?
It's just our crazy legal system that seems to be weighted more on the side of the perpetrators.
Reply:There was a documentary about tagging a while back


IIRC, tag breaches are often reported, by the monitoring company, the police do not take a great deal of notice of them... if they get back home before the police can be bothered to turn up, there is nothing the police can do, and they see it as a waste of time to keep going back to a tagged lag
Reply:I read the article and I've read your question repeatedly in an attempt to decipher WHAT it is you are asking.





What was it that the boy was not allowed to say???





According to the article: "He had previously admitted manslaughter" of a 51-year-old mother.





But he wouldn't plead guilty to the more serious charge of murder. Presumably because he didn't think it was entirely his fault due to the fact "he had been drinking all day before the attack."





Or perhaps your disjointed question %26amp; sentence are supposed to be joined (???)





Are you implying that the boy should have argued in court that his probation officer that released him with an electronic tracking device or the judge that ordered it so should be blamed for his actions?





If he had previously committed violent offenses I would agree with that sentiment but I seriously doubt that is the case. The press would have pounced on that story!
Reply:They're not allowed to say "it wasn't me" 'cos no doubt it was!!
Reply:system doesn't work perfectly ... which the perps know.
Reply:It cannot be stated in court during the trial that he is/was wearing a tag due to commiting other offences because it is considered prejudicial.





If they'd known, the jury might have formed opinions and reached decisions about about him because they knew he was an active criminal and not considered the case in front of them on it's merits alone.
Reply:They can say in court, AFTER the trial for the next offence.





During a trial, the defendant is not on trial for previous offences they were already convicted of. If the court is told of them it prejudices the verdict. I think this is correct. It would not be right to find someone guilty on anything other than evidence.





It is right that the court hears of relevant convictions after a guilty verdict and considers them when assessing a suitable punishment.
Reply:It is now time for some of these officials to be held accountable. I find it very difficult to understand how no-one is prosecuted for these early release scandals. If I made an error of judgement in the job I do and someone died as a direct consequence of an action/decision that I made. I would more than likely be charged with manslaughter due to gross negligence. So now that these incidents with early release/tagged offenders are becoming more frequent, as well as mentally unstable patients being released into the public domain unsupervised and left to fend for themselves. Is it now not the time to to start being tougher on these faceless bureaucrats? And then, these systems might shape up, and these people will not be so cavalier in releasing these perpetrators/patients.