PBL
I didn’t support your “plea to keep the discussion standard high”; I thought it was unnecessary. As for the exceptions to which I referred, I had in mind (amongst others) some of your contributions. See Bronx response to you, Post 69.
Who determined the discussion was solely about manslaughter?
I was responding to the contributions relating to negligence and manslaughter in the posts immediately preceding mine: Brian Abraham (70), yours (72) and Rubik (73).
I don’t think some “discussants” had forgotten about potential cases of murder/suicide in which there is what you describe as a guilty intent. Given the context of the discussion, IMHO it’s understandable that the emphasis throughout has been upon negligence, manslaughter etc, rather than murder/ attempted murder.
I’m no expert in US law, but assume Bronx had in mind what Americans commonly refer to as the ‘Miranda warning’ (after the Supreme Court decision in a case of than name.) UK law is similar. (There is a difference.) As 4Greens correctly says (albeit in the context of CVR material): “The issue is what can be used as evidence.” I suspect US prosecutors would have difficulty using statements made by a defendant who had not been given a Miranda warning. I’m not going to expand upon our equivalent (for reasons given in my previous post), but it would undoubtedly give rise to legal arguments if prosecutors here attempted to rely upon statements made by a defendant to AAIB investigators.
I don’t know what you mean by “there's a lawyer for you” or “Old habits die hard.”
I am a lawyer, but am firmly of the view that introducing mens rea into this discussion serves only to confuse and distract.
There was a joint statement by CANSO, the FSF and the RAeS in late 2006 calling for everyone not to undertake criminal prosecution in aviation accident cases except in cases of mens rea.
Full text of the Joint Resolution regarding Criminalisation of Aviation Accidents issued by the Flight Safety Foundation, Royal Aeronautical Society, Académie Nationale de l’ Air et de l’Espace and Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (Oct 2006) here: http://www.eraa.org/intranet/documen...nAccidents.pdf
Extracts here:1. Declare that the paramount consideration in an aviation accident investigation should be to determine the probable cause of and contributing factors in the accident, not to punish criminally flight crews, maintenance employees .......... etc.
Criminal investigations can and do hinder the critical information gathering portions of an accident investigations, and subsequently interfere with successful prevention of future aviation industry accidents.
2. Declare that, absent acts of sabotage and willful or particularly egregious reckless misconduct (including misuse of alcohol or substance abuse), criminalization of aviation accidents is not an effective deterrent or in the public interest.
Professionals in the aviation industry face abundant incentives for the safe operation of flight. The aviation industry every day puts its safety reputation and human lives on the line, and has a remarkable safety record which is due in large measure to the current willingness of operators and manufacturers to cooperate fully and frankly with the investigating authorities.
The benefit of gaining accurate information to increase safety standards and reduce recurring accidents greatly outweighs the retributive satisfaction of a criminal prosecution, conviction, and punishment.
Increasing safety in the aviation industry is a greater benefit to society than seeking criminal punishment for those “guilty” of human error or tragic mistakes.
3. Urge States to exercise far greater restraint and adopt stricter guidelines before officials initiate criminal investigations or bring criminal prosecutions in the wake of aviation disasters.
Without any indicia of proper justification for a criminal investigation or charges, the aviation system and air disaster victims and their loved ones are better served by resort to strong regulatory oversight and rigorous enforcement by national and international aviation authorities, and by pursuit of claims through civil justice systems to obtain compensation.
4. Urge States to safeguard the safety investigation report and probable cause/contributing factor conclusions from premature disclosure, and use directly in civil or criminal proceedings.
Although use of official accident reports may save criminal investigators the considerable expense of conducting an entire separate investigation, a considerable and serious risk exists of diverting these reports from their original purpose, as technical causes often cannot be equated to legal causes necessary when establishing either civil or criminal liability.
In addition, use of relatively untrained and inexperienced technical “experts” by prosecutorial or judicial authorities, as compared to official accident investigating authorities, can result in flawed technical analyses and a miscarriage of justice, while interfering with the official accident investigation.
5. Urge National aviation and accident investigating authorities to: (i) assert strong control over accident investigations, free from undue interference from law enforcement authorities; (ii) invite international cooperation in the accident investigation under Annex 13; (iii) conduct professional investigations to identify probable cause and contributing factors and develop recommendations in a deliberative manner, avoiding any “rush to judgment;” (iv) ensure the free and voluntary flow of essential safety information; (v) provide victims’ loved ones and their families with full, accurate, and precise information at the earliest possible time; and (vi) address swiftly any acts or omissions in violation of aviation standards.
I’ve read the full text again very quickly and, unless I missed it, it confirms my recollection that there was no mention of "mens rea."
(Very wise, IMHO. 
)
FL