Talk:Compounding a felony

Further information required
You can improve this article by finding out which of the common law jurisdictions not mentioned in the article have and have not abolished this offence. You can also improve this article by finding out what the leading cases are. James500 (talk) 02:24, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Perverting the course of justice
A previous editor has written that the compounding of an offence might still be prosecuted as perverting the course of justice. What section 5(5) of the Criminal Law Act 1967 actually says is "the compounding of an offence other than treason shall not be an offence otherwise than under this section". The effect of this appears to be that the compounding of such an offence is not any offence (including the offence of pervering the course of justice) other than the offence under section 5(1) of that Act. I have to concede that the only authority that I have for this proposition at the moment is a textbook (Card, Cross and Jones) that cites no cases in support of it.

I believe the offense involved an agreement not to prosecute for consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgard5000 (talk • contribs) 17:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The same logic applies to the other two statutes.

I have removed the remark from the text because I doubt that it is accurate.James500 (talk) 16:14, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

"Compounding a misdemeanor is not a crime"
It appears to be in Idaho. Idaho Code Title 18, Chapter 16 creates the offence of "compounding felony or misdemeanour". I don't know if this is still in force. Hairy Dude (talk) 15:58, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I noticed that the middle paragraph was word for word identical to text in the cited article from the Law Times Journal. Either they plagiarized us, which is WP:CIRCULAR and also makes that journal an unreliable source; or we plagiarized them and the text is probably a copyvio. The article mostly cites Indian cases as precedent and it's an Indian journal, so I'm assuming the latter. Much of the plagiarized text was duplicate information anyway, so it's no great loss. I left in the text about public policy as I can't think how else to word it. Hairy Dude (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2023 (UTC)