There were two things I found interesting from the original article.
1. She found this item 14 years ago (1996). She is accused of violating a law passed in 1996 (14 years ago). Who is to say that she did not find the item days or months prior to the law being passed? If so, why does the law apply to a crime committed before the law existed? Is there a statute of limitations for possible crimes you committed at age nine? Is every Briton bringing an ancient treasure to a museum presumed guilty, having to prove their innocence? If you inherit a treasure from a relative that has owned it for decades, are you a criminal for not reporting it the day you receive it?
2. She was ordered to pay 25£ of the 300£ court costs. This implies that the court did not want to punish her severely. This may actually make further cases less likely to be prosecuted.
-wheatiefan
1. She found this item 14 years ago (1996). She is accused of violating a law passed in 1996 (14 years ago). Who is to say that she did not find the item days or months prior to the law being passed? If so, why does the law apply to a crime committed before the law existed? Is there a statute of limitations for possible crimes you committed at age nine? Is every Briton bringing an ancient treasure to a museum presumed guilty, having to prove their innocence? If you inherit a treasure from a relative that has owned it for decades, are you a criminal for not reporting it the day you receive it?
2. She was ordered to pay 25£ of the 300£ court costs. This implies that the court did not want to punish her severely. This may actually make further cases less likely to be prosecuted.
-wheatiefan


















