PBL
let's try and keep the standard of discussion high on this one.
With some exceptions, the standard of discussion has been high. The exceptions are abuse against people who hold a different view, distorting opponents’ arguments and attributing to opponents arguments they didn’t advance.
“I think a general understanding of applicable law is necessary for most professional pilots and I am continually surprised at how little many people know.”
I haven’t noticed any lack of understanding of the applicable law such as to devalue the opinions expressed. (I’m relieved you concede your narrow role in the current criminal case has given you only “a peripheral (inadequate!) understanding of some of the legal issues.” Every man to his job. 
)
”A number of contributors to this thread don't appear even to have considered mens rea. To engage in a discussion on criminalisation, you have to take at least this much seriously.”
I disagree.
Introducing mens rea into a discussion about manslaughter serves only to confuse and distract. It is a crime of ‘basic intent’.
”If some pilot intends to crash an airplane and kill everyone on board ………., but survives, then, taking their contributions literally, some contributors here would apparently not prosecute himher because that would somehow "harm aviation safety", ………. Such a point of view does not make the slightest bit of sense.”
It wouldn’t, which no doubt is why nobody has said that, nor said anything from which that can reasonably be inferred.
Secondly, if a pilot intends to crash an aeroplane and kill everyone on board, it would not be manslaughter.
Rubik101
“Bringing arcane legal terms to these forum is often a mistake, pilots are not lawyers. However, in this case, you are perhaps right to do so.”
IMHO, it adds nothing but distraction and confusion. The explanation of mens rea you posted (which appears to be copied from Wikipedia) is not an accurate statement of the law.
Consideration of the ‘subjective’, ‘objective’ and ‘hybrid’ tests to which the passage refers is neither useful nor necessary for the purpose of discussing the general principles of whether flight safety is better enhanced by the criminal process or by an investigation in which those concerned can speak freely without fear of prosecution.
“The writings of some posters here makes me think that some of you border on the edge of reasonable behavior on a regular basis and are concerned about the consequences if you stray a little over that line.”
Can you really not accept that some people, just as professional and safety conscious as you, have come to the considered opinion that pilots being free to admit conduct falling below that to be expected of a reasonable and prudent pilot without fear of prosecution/imprisonment is of greater benefit to future flight safety than the (IMHO questionable) deterrent effect of possible prosecution/imprisonment?
Given the ultimate purpose of accident investigation - preventing similar accidents in the future - it’s essential that investigators are provided with all relevant information. In my experience, people at risk of prosecution aren’t inclined to risk incriminating themselves in circumstances where keeping quiet or being selective about what they reveal reduces the risk of prosecution.
For various reasons, I'm no longer free to say which side of the divide my opinion falls on the "criminalisation" issue (or any other 'legal' issue), but that does have one advantage: I escape having you include me amongst those whose views you consider to be “facile and illogical” and “sadly mistaken.” 
FDR
I entirely understand why many pilots object to such data being used for any purpose other than accident investigation.
Would those who hold that view still do so where disclosure of the data assisted a pilot’s defence to a criminal prosecution?
I ask because it did precisely that in a CAA prosecution last year which I began defending and which another Ppruner continued. The pilot was acquitted.
CVR
Many pilots, perhaps the overwhelming majority, object to CVR material being used for any purpose other than accident investigation. Again, I entirely understand their reasons and have always had considerable sympathy for that view.
What if the material exonerated the pilot, or assisted a defence to a civil claim or a criminal prosecution?
FL
Last edited by Flying Lawyer; 11th Feb 2008 at 23:26.