NeverAgain1
New Member
I'm facing a charge regarding an 'attempted' privacy breech.
After reading the information that defines what an 'attempt' actually is (in my jurisdiction), it appears clear that one of the 'components of an attempt' will not be able to be proved.
Specifically, it is stated:
"The action constituting the attempt must be immediately, not merely distantly connected with the contemplated offense. What is done must go beyond mere preparation to commit the crime and must amount really to the beginning of the commission of the crime"
The 'commissioning of the crime' in this case is stated by the legislation as being either 'observing' or 'recording'.
There were numerous 'preparatory acts' required to be completed before there could possibly be any 'observing' or 'recording'. This is so because although there was a concealed camera found directed at a private area, no power lead nor video lead was connected (or existed within the building) and thus the camera was inoperable.
The truth is that the camera had never been operable due to my prior personal decision not to continue with the commission of the offense. I was impeded in removing the part-way (importantly some proof exists of my contention {the truth} that I'd previously decided to desist in the form of police photographs showing plaster repairs of a camera 'mounting point') implemented video system due to not wanting to be discovered (seen or heard) doing so.
My thoughts as conveyed to my lawyer were that perhaps I should plead not guilty on the basis that with even one 'preparatory act' remaining to be done (acquisition and installation of power and video leads as well as numerous other required acts), it cannot logically be argued that actions progressed until the end of the process of 'preparation' and therefore of course not possibly 'beyond' as the above definition of an attempt requires.
My lawyer made it clear that he believed despite the above argument being presented to a jury, they would still definitely find me guilty, although he gave no specific reasons for why.
After many requests from myself for specific reasoning as to why/how they would find me guilty in the face of the 'directive' imposed on them by the quoted definition when applied against my suggested logic and much confusing and further non specific answers (due maybe to ethical restrictions) it was said (not in so many words and looking at what was said overall and in retrospect) that :
- A jury is human and will bring with them inerrant prejudices.
- the nature of the alleged offense will invoke those prejudices.
- The evidence of a camera directed at a private area will produce massive evidence of 'intent' (another of the components of an attempt and not disputed btw).
- this overwhelming 'intent' combined with emotion derived of prejudice (want of better word) itself derived out of the nature of the alleged attempted action will result in the jury focusing or 'latching on' to the camera and basically disregarding the 'directive' imposed on them by the quoted definition when applied against my suggested logic and result in them bringing in a guilty verdict.
I'm not legally trained at all so I'm unsure whether my proposed argument has any promise, but my lawyer seemed not to say it was an argument without relevance/validity/promise, but that again the camera will be focused on to the exclusion of any other factors.
I also conveyed the following analogy as it seemed to me to fit the situation... The below analogy was dismissed as not being relevant to the existing situation even prior to my finishing saying it.
Analogy:
No reasonable mind would consider that someone had made an attempt to shoot someone else with a rifle who DID do the following:
- Identified a window ledge that from which intended target may be visible some day.
- cleared some tree branches from in front of that window ledge
- placed a rifle on that window ledge.
But who DID NOT also do the following:
- Look through the rifle scope to ensure that the trajectory of the bullet would be clear of objects
- Place a bullet in the rifle
- Look through the rifle scope to aim the rifle
- Cock the trigger
- Pull the trigger
- And, for it to only be an attempt, they necessarily had to miss hitting the target
There seems to me to be many diverse issues arising from the situation just described, among them issues perhaps relating to lawyer ethical restrictions, tactics, human nature, justice etc etc.
I would like to ask for comments on this situation from anyone who would be so kind as to do so please. I realize it may restrict the effectiveness of my post, but at this point I think it best I don't ask specific questions as I don't want to influence what side opinion falls on within the answers I may get back.
I will say though that I guess what I'm trying to do is gauge the opinion of others regarding my lawyers opinion of what will be the jury's overriding influencing factor. You see, I'm finding it hard to accept that despite a jury's obligation to ignore emotion etc and stick to the factual evidence as it relates to the law when deliberating, that they would be in such a mindset so as to necessarily self justify (or perhaps subconsciously) neglecting their obligations just described to be able to arrive at a guilty verdict... perhaps I am just naive regarding human nature ? Perhaps I place to much faith in or am mistaken as to the legal relevance/validity of my proposed logic regarding 'preparatory acts' undeniably required before any beginning of the 'commissioning' of the crime could possibly occur ?
Additionally, I ask that restraint be exercised if anyone is thinking of flaming me by offering opinions regarding the morality etc of the alleged act... I am aware of the wrongfulness of such actions and am regretful of ever having started even down that path and have spent many weeks in prison on remand already prior to getting bail where I was brutally assaulted (not where you might think) by a extremely large African American male and still carry the scars. More so than that by far though is I'm damaged by prison in that I no longer feel whole, the world is no longer stable, nor kind and there remains an relentless uneasiness that now undermines all my experiences that they could come and take me back to prison at any time.
After reading the information that defines what an 'attempt' actually is (in my jurisdiction), it appears clear that one of the 'components of an attempt' will not be able to be proved.
Specifically, it is stated:
"The action constituting the attempt must be immediately, not merely distantly connected with the contemplated offense. What is done must go beyond mere preparation to commit the crime and must amount really to the beginning of the commission of the crime"
The 'commissioning of the crime' in this case is stated by the legislation as being either 'observing' or 'recording'.
There were numerous 'preparatory acts' required to be completed before there could possibly be any 'observing' or 'recording'. This is so because although there was a concealed camera found directed at a private area, no power lead nor video lead was connected (or existed within the building) and thus the camera was inoperable.
The truth is that the camera had never been operable due to my prior personal decision not to continue with the commission of the offense. I was impeded in removing the part-way (importantly some proof exists of my contention {the truth} that I'd previously decided to desist in the form of police photographs showing plaster repairs of a camera 'mounting point') implemented video system due to not wanting to be discovered (seen or heard) doing so.
My thoughts as conveyed to my lawyer were that perhaps I should plead not guilty on the basis that with even one 'preparatory act' remaining to be done (acquisition and installation of power and video leads as well as numerous other required acts), it cannot logically be argued that actions progressed until the end of the process of 'preparation' and therefore of course not possibly 'beyond' as the above definition of an attempt requires.
My lawyer made it clear that he believed despite the above argument being presented to a jury, they would still definitely find me guilty, although he gave no specific reasons for why.
After many requests from myself for specific reasoning as to why/how they would find me guilty in the face of the 'directive' imposed on them by the quoted definition when applied against my suggested logic and much confusing and further non specific answers (due maybe to ethical restrictions) it was said (not in so many words and looking at what was said overall and in retrospect) that :
- A jury is human and will bring with them inerrant prejudices.
- the nature of the alleged offense will invoke those prejudices.
- The evidence of a camera directed at a private area will produce massive evidence of 'intent' (another of the components of an attempt and not disputed btw).
- this overwhelming 'intent' combined with emotion derived of prejudice (want of better word) itself derived out of the nature of the alleged attempted action will result in the jury focusing or 'latching on' to the camera and basically disregarding the 'directive' imposed on them by the quoted definition when applied against my suggested logic and result in them bringing in a guilty verdict.
I'm not legally trained at all so I'm unsure whether my proposed argument has any promise, but my lawyer seemed not to say it was an argument without relevance/validity/promise, but that again the camera will be focused on to the exclusion of any other factors.
I also conveyed the following analogy as it seemed to me to fit the situation... The below analogy was dismissed as not being relevant to the existing situation even prior to my finishing saying it.
Analogy:
No reasonable mind would consider that someone had made an attempt to shoot someone else with a rifle who DID do the following:
- Identified a window ledge that from which intended target may be visible some day.
- cleared some tree branches from in front of that window ledge
- placed a rifle on that window ledge.
But who DID NOT also do the following:
- Look through the rifle scope to ensure that the trajectory of the bullet would be clear of objects
- Place a bullet in the rifle
- Look through the rifle scope to aim the rifle
- Cock the trigger
- Pull the trigger
- And, for it to only be an attempt, they necessarily had to miss hitting the target
There seems to me to be many diverse issues arising from the situation just described, among them issues perhaps relating to lawyer ethical restrictions, tactics, human nature, justice etc etc.
I would like to ask for comments on this situation from anyone who would be so kind as to do so please. I realize it may restrict the effectiveness of my post, but at this point I think it best I don't ask specific questions as I don't want to influence what side opinion falls on within the answers I may get back.
I will say though that I guess what I'm trying to do is gauge the opinion of others regarding my lawyers opinion of what will be the jury's overriding influencing factor. You see, I'm finding it hard to accept that despite a jury's obligation to ignore emotion etc and stick to the factual evidence as it relates to the law when deliberating, that they would be in such a mindset so as to necessarily self justify (or perhaps subconsciously) neglecting their obligations just described to be able to arrive at a guilty verdict... perhaps I am just naive regarding human nature ? Perhaps I place to much faith in or am mistaken as to the legal relevance/validity of my proposed logic regarding 'preparatory acts' undeniably required before any beginning of the 'commissioning' of the crime could possibly occur ?
Additionally, I ask that restraint be exercised if anyone is thinking of flaming me by offering opinions regarding the morality etc of the alleged act... I am aware of the wrongfulness of such actions and am regretful of ever having started even down that path and have spent many weeks in prison on remand already prior to getting bail where I was brutally assaulted (not where you might think) by a extremely large African American male and still carry the scars. More so than that by far though is I'm damaged by prison in that I no longer feel whole, the world is no longer stable, nor kind and there remains an relentless uneasiness that now undermines all my experiences that they could come and take me back to prison at any time.
