Our Justice Systems

[Calliope]

I am starting this thread on the premise that a lot of people agree with Mr Bumble's statement in Oliver Twist that "the law is a ass." Our justice systems (and they vary from state to state) are so loaded down with with anomalies and stupidities and something called "due process" that it matters little whether someone appearing before our courts is guilty or innocent, the result is a lottery.

The purpose of our courts is not to seek the truth, but to conceal the truth. The prosecution cannot admit into evidence previous crimes committed by the defendant,and the jury often assumes that it is a first offence. These people are often acquitted. All sorts of things are not admissable. Without knowing all the facts how can a judge and jury dispense justice? Why are the names of the defendants so often concealed for no obvious reason?

You may have been affected personally by the law's inadaquacies or know of cases. (and I don't mean traffic tickets)

 

[Julia]

So often the system seems to fail to deliver a just outcome. Is the problem the laws which the judge has to consider when delivering a sentence, or is it the judiciary itself which fails us?

And now, at least in Queensland, it appears we are about to change to majority verdicts (11 out of 12) in trials, rather than the unanimous verdict as at present. Perhaps this is reasonable if there were to be one nutty juror, but perhaps it's the thin end of the wedge, and in future it could be whittled down further? I'm not sure how I feel about this and would be interested in others' opinions.

What I can't believe is the short sentences which seem to apply when someone has been killed or maimed for life. As little as a couple of years.
There was a case in the paper today where charges were dropped against someone who had punched a victim so hard that he died. The defence counsel suggested his client had been provoked and that he couldn't have foreseen the death. Case over. Hardly seems like any incentive for violent youths to modify their behaviour!

 

[tadpole]

i remember a few years ago in perth a drunk driver knocked over and killed a little girl while she was crossing the road on her bike. his defence was that he had had a bad week at work. he got a $2000 fine and 18mts suspended sentence. this is all that poor little girls life was worth?


tadpole

 

[2020hindsight]

Richard Gere, in the movie Primal Fear I believe ..
"If you want justice, go to a brothel,
If you want to get screwed, go to court"

certainly it's a lottery

 

[Kauri]

Justice ...just is for sale... the only questions arre if you can ifford the price.. or know the right?? peoples...

(obviously I couldnae afford the price nor knew the right people)

Teers
.........Kauri

 

[Calliope]

So often the system seems to fail to deliver a just outcome. Is the problem the laws which the judge has to consider when delivering a sentence, or is it the judiciary itself which fails us?

And now, at least in Queensland, it appears we are about to change to majority verdicts (11 out of 12) in trials, rather than the unanimous verdict as at present. Perhaps this is reasonable if there were to be one nutty juror, but perhaps it's the thin end of the wedge, and in future it could be whittled down further? I'm not sure how I feel about this and would be interested in others' opinions.

What I can't believe is the short sentences which seem to apply when someone has been killed or maimed for life. As little as a couple of years.
There was a case in the paper today where charges were dropped against someone who had punched a victim so hard that he died. The defence counsel suggested his client had been provoked and that he couldn't have foreseen the death. Case over. Hardly seems like any incentive for violent youths to modify their behaviour!

I think in the case you mention Julia, or a similar case, the judge actually instructed the jury to acquit on the grounds that the defendant couldn't have foreseen that death would result from his actions. He also had a previous record of violence. This would seem to be the perfect defence for Dr Patel

I like the French system where they have three judges hearing the case. There is no adverserial system. The judges question all the witnesses and if they don't agree a majority decision applies.

 

[Julia]

I should have mentioned that, along with the suggestion of majority verdicts, there is the possibility that the defendant may choose from this or a trial by judge(s). If it were you, what would you choose? Majority jury trial or a judge?

 

[Hyperion]

Defendants can already choose between trial by jury or judge alone in certain types of cases...

Generally, defendents will pick a judge only trial in cases which involve extreme violence, bad publicity etc. because of the perception that judges are more objective than juries.

I also note that the right to a jury trial could be completely abolished by the state government by simply passing a law if it so desired.

Also remember that newspapers are trying to sell a story, they don't normally report the full facts. The verdict and sentence is based on the accused's culpability, not by the harm suffered by the victim.

 

[CAB SAV]

If ever you get caught for a driving/vehicle offence in Sth Aust, tell the police your name is Frank Thompson. Frank was a bit full driving the other day when he got picked up he blew over .3 !
Frank has been booked 25 times for driving offences & 27 vehicle offences in the past. Naturally he was driving whilst unlicensed and the vehicle was unregistered.
The Judge said yesterday that she didn't think it would be fair to jail him because his health was poor and suspened his license that he doesn't have and fined him $230!
Frank told the media tonight he has learnt his lesson & won't drive again.
F*** Me

 

[Calliope]

In Queensland the police have started the practice of waiting outside the magistrate's court to nab these serial offenders leaving the court after receiving their token fines and suspensions. When they get into their, often unregistered vehicles, they pinch them again. These idiots won't stop offending, and they don't pay their fines and there is no way to make them,apart from locking them up, and the jails are not big enough.

 

[Calliope]

Before every election there is often much talk of restoring "law and order' to the streets. It never happens because it doesn't matter how good a job the police do, it is in the courts where everything becomes unstuck.

In Queensland few years ago a labor Attorney General appointed large numbers of magistrates and judges on the apparent basis they were soft on crime, and have the naive belief that serial offenders can be reformed. they see no value in segregating predators from their victims. In their opinion sending villians to jail only makes them worse and impedes their reform

The judiciary is thus sprinkled with civil rights activists. Have you ever noticed that the self titled, self elected Civil Rights people are only interested in the rights of criminals. They have no interest in victims' rights.