Financial Advisors v Solicitors v Doctors v Accountants

Justice you will receive in the afterlife, in this world we have The Law.

Thats an approximate quote from someone famous (saw it in the intro to a book I started reading a while back) - vague statements I know.

But the point is, dont expect too much from the law, its there for our good by and large, but its too expensive for the common man so is skewed towards the rich for that reason, its full of frustrations and delays etc. However its better than the lynch mob mentality, so we have to suffer along with it and try to repair and refine it as we go.

If we lower our expectations of justice systems we'll gain a more realistic viewpoint. Things that bug me - double jeopardy - if there's new evidence then try them again, and again, and again if we find out more relevant facts each time.
 
Betsy Og said:
Things that bug me - double jeopardy - if there's new evidence then try them again, and again, and again if we find out more relevant facts each time.
Click to expand...

As with most aspects of common law there is a reason behind it which people only fully appreciate when it applies to themselves or a family member. How would you feel if you were being tried over and over again for one crime?
 
QED said:
What about a case where there is a drugs 'bust' and a large quantity of illegal drugs are found. There is no question that the people present were involved in dealing but a lawyer (doing their chosen job very well) finds a slight error in the procedure used to get the search warrant.
Click to expand...
I think you've been watching too much 'Law and Order'! When was the last time this happened in Ireland?
 
But it is a valid point; what about a search warrant being out of date when a computer full of child porn is found?
 
Purple said:
But it is a valid point; what about a search warrant being out of date when a computer full of child porn is found?
Click to expand...

Well if you allow the police to treat legal procedures as optional (in this or any other country) you know what happens next...
 
Don't forget as well that those who oppose 'getting off on technicalities' may benefit from this themselves at some time. It can work both ways.

What if, for example, you were innocent and being tried for a serious crime but were very convincingly and expertly framed for something? 'Loopholes' would then be a welcome light at the end of the tunnel.
 
Vanilla said:
As with most aspects of common law there is a reason behind it which people only fully appreciate when it applies to themselves or a family member. How would you feel if you were being tried over and over again for one crime?
Click to expand...

(I suppose we're off topic vis a vis the original subject but this is interesting and no-one seems to mind).

Well of course its a question of balance, you wouldnt re-open every shoplifting trial, but if it was serious enough then why not? At least isnt it better to have the option open than let some fiend off when it subsequently comes to light that they were guilty (or to be pc about it - that there a strong possibility that a jury would find them guilty in light of the new evidence).

Maybe it links with the other point often raised about the alleged law breakers allegedly having the balance too much in their favour as opposed to victims. How would you or your family feel if a rapist or murderer got off in court, new evidence came to light "proving" their guilt, but they could now laugh at you in the knowledge that they got away with it. I know there are no simple answers here but I do think we need to rebalance the scales and give the law abiding citizens better protection.

Same goes for technical flaws in procedure - we can apprarently trust our judges enough to have non-jury trials in the Special Criminal Court - but we cant give them discretion to judge whether a procedural flaw in warrants/arrests etc. etc. was such as to make the prosection unsafe?? Seems mad to me.

And what do we do with crazy judges?, there's the odd one going the road who get quoted with outrageous statements (some fella in Westmeath or thereabouts). Is this system objective enough to weed out the cranks?? I know that independence of the judiciary is key but again, can we not do better?
 
ubiquitous said:
Well if you allow the police to treat legal procedures as optional (in this or any other country) you know what happens next...
Click to expand...
I agree with you, I was merely stating that it is a valid point to make and should be taken into account when weighing up the rights of the individual to the presumption of innocence and the duty of the state to provide a legal system that the people have faith in. We already have a problem with vigilantism and people taking the law into their own hands. The implications if the generality of citizenry lost faith in the legal system would be catastrophic.
 
Betsy Og said:
How would you or your family feel if a rapist or murderer got off in court, new evidence came to light "proving" their guilt, but they could now laugh at you in the knowledge that they got away with it.
Click to expand...
I would like to think I would abide by the law but I know that if someone that I knew was guilty raped or murdered a member of my family I would take the law into my own hands.
 
Purple said:
I would like to think I would abide by the law but I know that if someone that I knew was guilty raped or murdered a member of my family I would take the law into my own hands.
Click to expand...

I think that illustrates my point that unless the scales are rebalanced to protect the innocent, the innocent will be tempted to seek their own recourse - and that would be a bad day.
 
Betsy Og said:
I think that illustrates my point that unless the scales are rebalanced to protect the innocent, the innocent will be tempted to seek their own recourse - and that would be a bad day.
Click to expand...
It doesn't prove your point. It proves that a desire for revenge is a pretty normal and healthly human reaction, regardless of what way the scales are balanced. I doubt if Purple's ire in such a scenario would be resolved by a fair trial.
 
There are an awful lot of injustices out there (some involving loss of life and/or lives being ruined) that do not lead to criminal trials, or indeed do not involve breaches of the law in the first instance. For example, take the regular instances of suicide victims who have been neglected by the public health authorities, and who have gone on to take their own lives. Those left behind have no option but to learn to live and let live.
 
Complainer said:
It doesn't prove your point. It proves that a desire for revenge is a pretty normal and healthly human reaction, regardless of what way the scales are balanced. I doubt if Purple's ire in such a scenario would be resolved by a fair trial.
Click to expand...

So by that logic we should abolish the justice system altogether since the victims will never be happy?

Civil peace (i.e. the absence of widespread vigilantism, unbridled crime, riots etc.) is based on acceptance and respect for law enforcement at the front line, and a robust and balanced justice system behind it.

Now in Ireland we are no where near losing faith with the justice system, but there is a fairly significant level of dissatisfaction with the direction the system has moved, the perception being that its too in favour of the criminal, and what is needed is rebalancing.

Am I to take it that you are happy with the current angle of the scales?
 
Complainer said:
I've made the point I want to make - see http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=708999&postcount=71
Click to expand...

What I take from that is that you think victims will always be unhappy so theres no point in trying to better things? (maybe I've misinterpreted).

What I'm saying is that of course we should try to improve the system, the fact that we can never perfect it should not deter us from trying to improve it.

So lets not despair and disregard the system altogether or resign it as being something incapable of improvement.
 
The function of the criminal justice system is not to make the victim feel better or to punish the perpetrator of a crime to a degree deemed suitable by the victim; it is to punish the perpetrator to a degree deemed appropriate by the state.
For example, if someone raped my daughter I would kill them. I would do it in the slowest and most painful way I could. There is no way that the state could or should condone such actions. Justice and retribution are not the same thing.
 
Complainer said:
There you go again with that 2+2 thing.
Click to expand...

ok fair enough, its just that when people make a negative point but propose no solution it usually means they dont see one.

Say someone says, "the health service is all a mess" and throws their hands up in exasperation, this typically means they have a sense that all is not well but are either unwilling or unable to suggest how it might be fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top