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.
I think you've been watching too much 'Law and Order'! When was the last time this happened in Ireland?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.
But it is a valid point; what about a search warrant being out of date when a computer full of child porn is found?
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?
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.Well if you allow the police to treat legal procedures as optional (in this or any other country) you know what happens next...
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.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 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.
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.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.
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.
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. And by the same logic, 2 + 2 = 127.So by that logic we should abolish the justice system altogether since the victims will never be happy?
Yes, that's exactly what I was thinking. And by the same logic, 2 + 2 = 127.
I've made the point I want to make - see http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=708999&postcount=71Well make your point so if you're able, the drivel is depressing me.
I've made the point I want to make - see http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showpost.php?p=708999&postcount=71
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).
There you go again with that 2+2 thing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?