17 votes

The man arrested in relation to the Christchurch terror attacks will face 50 murder charges and 39 attempted murder charges

4 comments

  1. [5]
    Comment deleted by author
    Link
    1. [4]
      alyaza
      Link Parent
      think it varies based on charges that can be levied and jurisdiction. it took dylann roof only a day after being captured to be charged in the US with "nine counts of murder and one count of...

      think it varies based on charges that can be levied and jurisdiction. it took dylann roof only a day after being captured to be charged in the US with "nine counts of murder and one count of possession of a firearm during the commission of a violent crime" at the state level, and it looks like two days to be charged with "nine counts of using a firearm to commit murder and 24 civil rights violations" at the federal level for his mass shooting.

      however, it took ten days for james holmes to be charged with "24 counts of first degree murder, 116 counts of attempted murder, possession of explosive devices, and inciting violence" for his in colorado.

      4 votes
      1. [3]
        cfabbro
        (edited )
        Link Parent
        Yeah it definitely varies a lot... and I think the biggest factor in that variance is probably whether or not a country has a speedy trial clause somewhere in their Constitutional documents. In...

        Yeah it definitely varies a lot... and I think the biggest factor in that variance is probably whether or not a country has a speedy trial clause somewhere in their Constitutional documents.

        In the US there is the 6th Amendment speedy trial clause, which is likely why charges are often levied so quickly after events there, as you gave examples of. And Canada's Section 11(b) of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms is similar, which is likely why the Quebec City mosque shooter was charged with six counts of murder 2 days afterwards.

        However, AFAICT New Zealand has no such speedy trial clause and so they can take their time before levying charges. And Norway similarly does not appear to either, which is probably why prosecutors there didn't charge Breivik until eight months later.

        4 votes
        1. [2]
          Algernon_Asimov
          Link Parent
          I assume there's also the aspect of wanting to make sure the charges stick. The NZ police wouldn't want to charge this particular defendant with an offence and then find their case being dismissed...

          I assume there's also the aspect of wanting to make sure the charges stick. The NZ police wouldn't want to charge this particular defendant with an offence and then find their case being dismissed on a technicality. So, they'll have checked and double-checked and triple-checked their evidence and their processes to make sure that they're only charging this person with charges they can reasonably prove, and that they don't make any silly errors along the way which a lawyer or judge (even though the defendant says he'll be representing himself) could use to undermine their case.

          So, I'm guessing that "slow and steady - and thorough" is the motto of the police in this matter.

          2 votes
          1. cfabbro
            Link Parent
            I imagine police want to have the charges stick practically everywhere, especially when it comes to hugely publicized events like mass shootings. But in the US and Canada at least, it's also...

            I imagine police want to have the charges stick practically everywhere, especially when it comes to hugely publicized events like mass shootings. But in the US and Canada at least, it's also pretty common and generally regarded as acceptable to add, remove and/or modify charges later as the facts come to light... so that probably plays a more significant part in how quickly initial charges are levied against accused criminals here, than it just being a case of the police wanting to be more "thorough" elsewhere.

            1 vote