| Forum Home | ||||
| PC World Chat | ||||
| Thread ID: 84766 | 2007-11-17 18:25:00 | Should Juries see previous convictions ? | Digby (677) | PC World Chat |
| Post ID | Timestamp | Content | User | ||
| 612482 | 2007-11-20 06:58:00 | At least you try. When you attain the status we will send you a membership card. I fear I will never attain that status - the membership card will forever stay out of reach. |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612483 | 2007-11-20 06:59:00 | well, yes, that is the fact of the matter. | Metla (12) | ||
| 612484 | 2007-11-20 07:15:00 | I have always wondered how liberals feel when something real bad has done been against them like rape, assault, burgulary etc. Some of you may remember our big drama four years ago -my 18-year old daughter was in a major car accident. Some months after the crash the policewoman from the serious crash unit rang me to say, in a sorrowful tone, that she had some bad news for my daughter. Yes? What? She then proceeded to tell me that the idiot who crossed the centre line was unable to be prosecuted as she was still in hospital and the time to charge her was running out. Would this badly affect my daughter as the idiot was escaping punishment? My reply was that the said idiot (on methadone at the time and not wearing a safety belt) had broken most of the bones in her body, been in a coma for 2 weeks, died a few times in intensive care, was permanently head injured and liable to be in care for the rest of her life. She seemed to have punished herself possibly just a tad more than the Courts would do. Ah yes, said the policewoman, but would my daughter get "closure" as it wasn't going through the Courts? My reply was that she would get over it. As an update: My daughter has a disability - permanent pain in her foot, regularly swollen ankle, threat of arthritis later BUT... she decided, with help, to become a survivor rather than a victim. She reassessed what whe wanted out of life and set out to achieve these goals. She is currently in the UK on a student exchange scholarship, travelling and totally enjoying herself. Do we wish it hadn't happened? Of course, but harbouring grudges destroys one's own soul. Who wants to live with negativity for the rest of their lives? And besides, what comes around goes around. |
Mercury (1316) | ||
| 612485 | 2007-11-20 07:16:00 | Words fail me. Well that interested me. Do your words fail or do we not comprehend your words? May it be you can not come up with the correct words to support your debate? I believe that the law(s) actually suck. The prosecution take people to court(s) and the jury of your peers are supposed to listen to the evidence. The Jury is only presented with the evidence the prosecution is allowed to present and also allowed to only listen to what the defence is allowed to present. The Parliament in New Zealand makes the law(s) . The police are supposed to enforce the law(s). The lawyers on both sides present the argument to the court(s). Parliament makes the law with advice from civil servants. Even the ministers are responsible for things they know nothing about. Cullen for example. www.dpmc.govt.nz Have a think. I am quite prepared to debate on this issue at a time and place of your choosing. |
Sweep (90) | ||
| 612486 | 2007-11-20 07:27:00 | I get your point about recidivist offenders. However, to suppose that recidivist offenders are constantly walking free merely because the jury didn't get to hear about previous convictions is mere supposition.Obviously not Deane. Yet again you take part of my quote, twist it around and change the point of reference - come on, I did exactly the same to you, you saw it because it stuck out like the proverbial and you didn't learn from it? This is why I can't be bothered continuing the debate/argument. This was also my point in that other thread where we banged heads. Nothing personal here but your arguments revolve around not addressing the issue, and changing the point of reference - a good debating technique when employed with the straw-man (which I will admit to using myself) but I can't be bothered. I've already made my point and life is to short to debate legal issues at right angles with strangers over the 'net. Over and out! |
andrew93 (249) | ||
| 612487 | 2007-11-20 09:14:00 | And besides, what comes around goes around. Not really, murderers and rapists go to prison to get paid and recieve 3 meals a day, if they behave well they may get out well early of the date set by the court (which will already be a unustly short period of time) while the victim(s) lives will either be stopped forever or radically changed. Doesnt seem fair really, karma is wishful thinking. |
rob_on_guitar (4196) | ||
| 612488 | 2007-11-20 18:21:00 | It's not evidence of the crime being tried. But dont you think its valid as a prosecution character witnesses? |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612489 | 2007-11-20 18:29:00 | But dont you think its valid as a prosecution character witnesses? No. |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 612490 | 2007-11-20 19:07:00 | Well that interested me. Do your words fail or do we not comprehend your words? May it be you can not come up with the correct words to support your debate? I believe that the law(s) actually suck. The prosecution take people to court(s) and the jury of your peers are supposed to listen to the evidence. The Jury is only presented with the evidence the prosecution is allowed to present and also allowed to only listen to what the defence is allowed to present. The Parliament in New Zealand makes the law(s) . The police are supposed to enforce the law(s). The lawyers on both sides present the argument to the court(s). Parliament makes the law with advice from civil servants. Even the ministers are responsible for things they know nothing about. Cullen for example. www.dpmc.govt.nz Have a think. I am quite prepared to debate on this issue at a time and place of your choosing. Hi Sweep, I have always wondered how ministers get portfolios they know nothing about then process to make radical decisions on how these laws\ministries are run all the while safely cocooned within their parliamentary expense privileges that shield them from the effect their decisions make on the majority of the populous. To top it all off, election promises go out the door and party agendas take presidency I don't know why we bother to vote.......I think we should just do referendums......sack the MP's. Imagine how much money the country would save!....LOL |
SolMiester (139) | ||
| 612491 | 2007-11-20 19:43:00 | Ministers set policy. The policy is decided at Cabinet meetings. The Cabinet is advised by civil servants and the ministers' secretaries for that portfolio. Civil servants are responsible for the execution of policy and day-to-day running of the ministry and its various departments. As for radical changes - well, the ministers get to be accountable at election time... (So hardly at all given that most of them are high on the list and will get their seat even if they lose their electorate.) |
Deane F (8204) | ||
| 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 | |||||