| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 97122 | 2009-02-05 00:41:00 | Dixon is dead, Long live dixon | plod (107) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 745068 | 2009-02-06 09:35:00 | To strive to get 'not guilty' verdicts for sub-humans on technicalities under the adversarial system is not comparable at all with doctors ethics. So what about the prosectors who strive to get guilty verdicts for people the police say are subhuman? Often arguing that key evidence not be shown to juries under these so-called "technicalities" as has happened often in the past. Nor do the police in New Zealand have a clean record when it comes to fitting people up for a trial so that they can show a result. Do you believe everything the police say? Apart from the Police Complaints Authority, who do you think is keeping the NZ Police honest? |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 745069 | 2009-02-06 10:28:00 | I do not disagree with you Deane...but what you say illustrates why the general public are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the judicial system in this country and why the standing of lawyers is approaching that of car salesmen, and basically is confirming what I said :) They say truth is the first casualty in war, the prosecution fights to get a guilty verdict, the defence fights to get an aquittal, truth seems to take second place. The selective culling of evidence in the Peter Ellis CHCH creche case to support the prosecution case , and the rejection of evidence that did not leaves one "gobsmacked" in the current vernacular. Such a practice would mean the end of all credibilty for a scientist. From around 90 childrens statements about 4 or 5 were selected as being possibly credible. The other 80 or so were rejected as being too outlandish, such as going for a ride in a non existent Ellis car, or the women staff dancing naked. homepage.mac.com a rather dated reference now. |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 745070 | 2009-02-06 11:19:00 | They say truth is the first casualty in war, the prosecution fights to get a guilty verdict, the defence fights to get an aquittal, truth seems to take second place. I pretty much agree with this - however, this system is what has evolved out of 900 years of the English legal tradition. The adversarial system, with the burden of proof resting on the State, is the best balance that we have managed to find when the truth of a matter is at question. The gravity of a government's power over it's people must be properly appreciated. The resources that are available to a prosecution are overwhelming in most cases. Take the Barlow case - two mistrials and on the third trial the police spent $35,000 to bring a single expert blood spatter witness over from the USA for the trial. To wield the power to remove a person's liberty from them for decades, in some cases, surely the government ought to be put to the question properly? There are inquisitorial systems in some Western democracies but they suffer from shortcomings too - from my point of view, they place too much power in the hands of magistrates. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 745071 | 2009-02-06 13:49:00 | I pretty much agree with this - however, this system is what has evolved out of 900 years of the English legal tradition. The adversarial system, with the burden of proof resting on the State, is the best balance that we have managed to find when the truth of a matter is at question. The gravity of a government's power over it's people must be properly appreciated. The resources that are available to a prosecution are overwhelming in most cases. Take the Barlow case - two mistrials and on the third trial the police spent $35,000 to bring a single expert blood spatter witness over from the USA for the trial. To wield the power to remove a person's liberty from them for decades, in some cases, surely the government ought to be put to the question properly? There are inquisitorial systems in some Western democracies but they suffer from shortcomings too - from my point of view, they place too much power in the hands of magistrates. I'm afraid I can't take any of your posts seriously until you l2its. |
roddy_boy (4115) | ||
| 745072 | 2009-02-06 18:55:00 | I pretty much agree with this - however, this system is what has evolved out of 900 years of the English legal tradition. The adversarial system, with the burden of proof resting on the State, is the best balance that we have managed to find when the truth of a matter is at question. The gravity of a government's power over it's people must be properly appreciated. The resources that are available to a prosecution are overwhelming in most cases. Take the Barlow case - two mistrials and on the third trial the police spent $35,000 to bring a single expert blood spatter witness over from the USA for the trial. To wield the power to remove a person's liberty from them for decades, in some cases, surely the government ought to be put to the question properly? There are inquisitorial systems in some Western democracies but they suffer from shortcomings too - from my point of view, they place too much power in the hands of magistrates. Yes, that could be argued, but on the other hand they have effectively delegated responsibility for the day to day running of the judicial system to the police. lawyers, and judges. We need an effective peer review system, a system that institutes 'quality assurance' in the judicial system, rather than scoring points off each other. I cant understand what roddy boy is on about, we seem now to also have an unterkopf class :) |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 745073 | 2009-02-06 18:55:00 | I'm afraid I can't take any of your posts seriously until you l2its. Dadaism spreads to forum posts. Obscure but brilliant, roddy_boy. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 745074 | 2009-02-06 19:08:00 | Yes, that could be argued, but on the other hand they have effectively delegated responsibility for the day to day running of the judicial system to the police. lawyers, and judges. Well, the judges haven't had anything delegated to them as such - they are a branch of government and completely separate from government as per the doctrine of the separation of powers - ie: Executive (cabinet), Legislature (parliament sitting as the whole House) and Judiciary. There are many constitutional mechanisms to stop interference between these branches - judges cannot run for parliament, parliament cannot reduce the salary of a judge in their lifetime and so on. Judges also have tenure. The Police are part of the Executive - that is, they answer to the Minister of Police who sits in cabinet and is therefore separate from the legislature. Lawyers, like doctors, are statutorily empowered to regulate their own profession and do so via the New Zealand Law Society. We need an effective peer review system, a system that institutes 'quality assurance' in the judicial system, rather than scoring points off each other. We do - there are higher courts - ie: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court - and both of these courts have benches of three judges or more depending on the importance of the appeal. If you read a few of the decisions from the appellate courts you can see that the appellate judges show absolutely no mercy to their colleagues in the lower courts when they think they are wrong. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 745075 | 2009-02-06 20:03:00 | Im so happy that retarded waste of. ... well i cant even be bothered, but Im glad that dickhead is dead. I hope his lawyer gets attacked by a psycho to wake him up. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 745076 | 2009-02-06 21:34:00 | Well, the judges haven't had anything delegated to them as such - they are a branch of government and completely separate from government as per the doctrine of the separation of powers - ie: Executive (cabinet), Legislature (parliament sitting as the whole House) and Judiciary . There are many constitutional mechanisms to stop interference between these branches - judges cannot run for parliament, parliament cannot reduce the salary of a judge in their lifetime and so on . Judges also have tenure . The Police are part of the Executive - that is, they answer to the Minister of Police who sits in cabinet and is therefore separate from the legislature . Lawyers, like doctors, are statutorily empowered to regulate their own profession and do so via the New Zealand Law Socety . We do - there are higher courts - ie: Court of Appeal and Supreme Court - and both of these courts have benches of three judges or more depending on the importance of the appeal . If you read a few of the decisions from the appellate courts you can see that the appellate judges show absolutely no mercy to their colleagues in the lower courts when they think they are wrong . Yes . . . . but . . . . the mechanisms you refer to are very much "an after the event" process . On the other hand, Quality Assurance is an ongoing process, a simple specific QC example being continous online dimensional inspection during manufacture, rather than post manufacturing inspection to sort out the defective product from the good . If the medical profession had instituted QA years ago, then it is possible that Herb Greens disastrous treatment of women with cervical cancer at National Womens would have been prevented . There has been a traditional arrogance in the medical field, at one time it wasn't the done thing to ask questions . It has changed radically for the better in more recent years, but still has a way to go . I suspect lawyers would resist an independent outside body telling them how to set up and run a QA system . :rolleyes: |
Terry Porritt (14) | ||
| 745077 | 2009-02-06 23:23:00 | Deaf ears may prevail T. You are dealing with a master of the wrong end of the stick. |
Cicero (40) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 | |||||