| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/27/2008 4:03:47 PM | Very often crimes never do get a resolution as the offender is going on holiday or they are asked to go to the station and make a statement at their convenience etc. The Police are far too over stretched to chase them up and the months go by and the victim loses the anger and decide to opt for an easy life and leave it.
Or maybe there was no evidence, no cctv, the offenders wear gloves, they know the system and the law better than anyone and how to abuse it. They may have a string of offences that have never got any where and continue because they can.
I think if the government spent a bit more money on Policing our Country instead of relying on cameras it would improve the current situation and 'yob culture'. Perhaps if Police Stations were opened up in the areas where they have been closed or are manned properly it would be better and if they got paid a decent wage for a job that is becoming increasingly difficult due to lack of support and paperwork.
That is just my opinion mind and my apologies if I've gone off on a tangent. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/27/2008 4:12:38 PM | did you know also that the jury's occupations can influence outcomes ?? That its self can result in a unfair trial.
Do we or the government totally trust trial by jury anyway, was it not the government trying to restrict the right to have a trial by jury for several years in certain types of crime committed.
I certainly wouldn't trust a jury to give a fair trial in cases where previous convictions were disclosed before reaching a verdict.
Ok fair point. maybe my status at Lancaster Uni right now doing a higher degree in criminology and criminal justice may be influencing my opinion ?
It's a bit like Carlsberg.... Probably.
Has the socio legal studies thingi been tested ? is it feasable? can it be re tested to get the same results ?
This test was done 12/13 years ago... does it still have validity ?
Regardless of validity , i'd say its up to some one to show a study that says it's invalid and disproves it, so i'd say that it's feasible and valid, and if a similar test was conducted now, then a similar outcome would be produced. (I may be wrong but thats life eh.)
Maybe you want to discuss at Uni, and set up some mock trials.?. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/27/2008 4:22:18 PM |
Do we or the government totally trust trial by jury anyway
they must do .. why use them otherwise ?
I ceratinly wouldn't trust a jury to give a fair trial in certain cases if previous convictions were disclosed before reaching a verdict
just hope to god you dont have a butcher on the jury.. but you'd trust them in some not all ? whats the difference ?
It's a bit like Carlsberg.... Probably
if only.. then again carlsbergs kak and they only make boyfriend s apparntly.. not law
Regardless of validity, i'd say that it's feasible
unfortunately tinny .. your say doesnt make it feasible.. validity makes it feasible
Maybe you want to discuss at Uni, and set up some mock trials.?.
no need to thanks... its kak and whats the chances of getting a decent sample... they will all have the same profile about carlsberg !
 | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/27/2008 4:26:48 PM | A system where two parties with vested interest in proving they are the better barrister or manipulators of the law is wrong. It should be all down to proving events, all things should be down to truth, not technicalities, not personalities but truth, but that would involve no emotions!
Until such time as mankind can develop a truth drug or a method of truly reading a persons mind, in aways that it was all open to be viewed as a video tape ,then we must accept the human flaws of a system based on human weaknesses. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/28/2008 8:06:51 AM | mike... I think I agree with what you've just said in message... practically 100%.
In general though I think our present system... good as it is... is starting to creak, has not kept pace with changes happening in our society... and at the very least needs substantial fine tuning. | |
|
cargy
|
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 31 | |
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/28/2008 8:35:18 AM | I agree with most of what msg 29 says.
Until we can find a better system, we are kind of stuck!
The problem is that many of our cases are bogged down in pettifogging and technicalities. It is fully possible for a piece of solid incontrovertible evidence to be ruled as inadmissable, and the quality of representation can depend heavily on the financial resources of the accused.
Taken together this often means a guilty person walks or an innocent person faces sentence for a crime of which they are innocent.
I also believe that both the justice system and the legal representation system is something of an "exclusive club" mentality that seems to work for the benefit of itself rather than the combined causes of justice and truth. Many trials appear to become little more than an amusing game to those involved, and the truth of the matter can often become lost in their enjoyment of the game.
The fact is, human nature being what it is, even if therre were an electronic means to establish truth, someone would find a way to subvert it for their own ends.
It is the human element that lets our system down, not the principles. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/28/2008 9:01:43 AM | | yes i have bn accused of assault to my previous partner so many lies were put 4 ward but i wasnt allowed to bring up anything about the character of my accuser which would hav shown my innocence. i stand to lose my livelihood,ive lost my home and evrythng i ve worked very hard for. i am now at the mercy of the probation services | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/28/2008 9:04:29 AM | The problem is that many of our cases are bogged down in pettifogging
I've never heard the word 'Pettifogging' before. Can you tell me what it means,as i quite like it and wish to use it more in conversation. | |
|
cargy
|
Joined: 10/13/2006
Msg: 34 | |
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/28/2008 10:08:50 AM |
I've never heard the word 'Pettifogging' before. Can you tell me what it means,as i quite like it and wish to use it more in conversation.
I dunno about its suitability for use in everyday conversation (and I don't claim to be any sort of authority on the use of words) but, as I understand it, it its general usage is an adjective to describe quibbling over minor details, nitpicking, or raising petty and annoying objections that are not of great relevance to the matter under discussion.
It can also imply an unscrupulous indulgence in trickery and twisting of facts to mislead or cloud an issue. | |
|
| |
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 8:26:26 AM | Hi guys.
As a public service have just had a quick look in dictionary at meaning of pettifogging. First dictionary (chambers 21st century) defines primary meaning of pettifogger as a lawyer who deals with trivial cases, especially somewhat deceitfully or quibblingly. So subsidiary meaning has become some one who argues over trivial details. And pettifogging now tends to just mean petty or trivial. Oxford Concise Oxford gives very similar explanation.
Ah well... one of my missions for rest of week is to accuse some one of being a pettifogger. Maybe my boss? Chancy perhaps?? ... But most likely he'll take it as a compliment, and he's unlikely to refer to a dictionary. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 10:25:58 AM |
[...]'not guilty' verdicts. It means that a professional organisation such as the CPS proceeded with a case without obtaining firm evidence of guilt.
They're not meant to establish 'firm' evidence of guilt. They're meant to establish that there is sufficient evidence of a case to answer.
Do [...] the government totally trust trial by jury anyway, was it not the government trying to restrict the right to have a trial by jury for several years in certain types of crime committed.
They clearly don't have a comfortable relationship with it. The government has amended legislation in order to direct the jury (e.g. The Official Secrets Act after Clive Ponting's acquittal) and has done away with jury trials altogether where it proved too difficult to isolate them from social (or anti-social) influence ('Diplock' courts in Northern Ireland); or where it has dcided that the case is too complex for a layman (certain categories of fraud trial).
One alternative is the 'inquisitorial' approach adopted by the French and Italians where a member of the judiciary investigates the case and the decision is based on that evidence rather than "the better barrister or manipulators of the law". You'd have to ask their citizens if they think it works better! | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 11:44:51 AM |
They're not meant to establish 'firm' evidence of guilt. They're meant to establish that there is sufficient evidence of a case to answer.
I know that.
What irks me is that the CPS's definition of 'sufficient' differs from that of the jury, in many cases. The evidence obtained should be clear enough for even the thickest juror to understand. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 12:04:16 PM |
They're not meant to establish 'firm' evidence of guilt. They're meant to establish that there is sufficient evidence of a case to answer. I know that. What irks me is that the CPS's definition of 'sufficient' differs from that of the jury, in many cases. The evidence obtained should be clear enough for even the thickest juror to understand.
The key distinction is between 'guilt' and 'case to answer'. what is sufficient to establish a case to answer may not (when argued) be sufficient to establish guilt. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 1:44:21 PM | Funny that when i brought this up in another thread ages ago i was slagged off chronic for mentioning the guilty have more rights than the innocent man | |
|
| |
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 2:48:27 PM | | Hi tin head iam glad iam always right.even not being a woolly liberal idiot,or in the middle,wat goes around comes around | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/29/2008 3:41:54 PM |
Hi tin head iam glad iam always right.even not being a woolly liberal idiot,or in the middle,wat goes around comes around I think you are a racist idiot that lives in the dark ages. I cannot believe anything you post, in fact I truly believe you to be educationally sub normal?
The only thing you are is right wing, to the extreme | |
|
| |
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 1/30/2008 1:34:38 PM | Whitey thank you for backing myself, chucking your toys out the pram ,are so stupid that any body who doesnt happen to agree with you is a nazi,you need to stop reading your left wing comics,people arnt racist cos they have diferent views,well in your belief they do.an come out your cave,an see there many sides to a arguement not just your side.  | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:22:55 AM | | this country is totally knackerd! criminals have a great time in prison, they first of all plead not guilty, so they get remanded into prison, this means they are innocent until proven guilty, meaning they have an easier time whilst on remmand.. this can last a few months.. then when they eventually plead guilty, they get time off there sentence for a guilty plea, time off there sentence for being on remand, locked up for a couple of months convicted, living it up with sky tv, good food, free accomadation. this is all paid for by the british tax payer. but the government had better be carefull, because in about 5 years time, there will be no british tax payers left! as they will be all polish tax payers, working over here on basic pay, working all hours for the same rate.. 10 polish workers living in a 1 bedroom appartment, not spending any of the money they earn over here, and transfering it to poland where it is worth a fortune. thats why they can work here for the money they earn, as they done live by our standards.. so.. result is, the best thing to do if you loose your job through the immigrants taking them, resort to crime, and if you get caught live your life in luxury for a few months and let the polish tax payer pay for it........ sorted.. yes the british law stinks!!! | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 6/22/2008 1:44:44 AM |
Napoleonic law is the way of France,America and lots of other countries.
I think British law is safer
That would not be the case for the US. In US law the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof (of guilty) is on the state - like the UK system.
I think it's a matter of priorities. Would you rather risk a guilty person walking free or sacrifice an innocent one if s/he can't meet the burden of proof?
There are two things that surprise me about law in the UK. First there's the length of sentences - serious offenses have hardly any jail time attached to them. But that's probably because I'm use to seeing an assault, rape or murder get upward of 25 - life with no chance of parole. But also, there doesn't seem to be a thriving private prison building industry here so maybe that has something to do with it!
The thing that offends me the most is rape law in Scotland. Apparently juries are instructed that irrespective of what happen, the accuser must prove that her lack of consent was adequetly clear to the accused. In other words the jury has to decide if she was obvious enough in her desire not to engage in sexual relations. What a crock! Giant giant loophole where the woman's character etc can be brought into the defense to play upon the jury's prejudices (should they exist).
I say she, woman in the above because currently in Scottish law only a woman can be raped. That's another lame bit I have to say. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:04:01 AM | | I don't know enough about the law to say if it is fundamentally flawed, but there are definately problems. I look back at the time when my ex and myself (me especially) were given a major kicking. I ended up with a fractured skull, cracked ribs and agoraphobia. I was in pain for a number of weeks and was covered in cuts and bruises. My ex called 999 while i was in the street with 4 or 5 people piling in on me, the police drove past and saw what was going on and also who was doing what, and yet I was charged with assault as there was a group of about 20 people well known to the police for criminal acts and assaults all saying I was the aggressor (I'd tried to step in when my ex was punched in the face by a woman and her boyfriend). The boyfriend had even punched his girlfriend in the face and convinced her to say I did it! We reported a LOT of harassment after that, all by the same people, including petrol bombs thrown at our flat. The police simply said there was nothing they could do, despite photographic evidence (which they refused to acknowledge) and told us to move or put up with it | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 6/22/2008 5:12:47 AM | | Jesus christ rev_guilliano! Thats insane!! You should have gone public with that story and hammered the local police force's ass! But with regard to assualt charges, it is so easy to get done for it in that type of situation so I am not surprised you got convicted - however, as the case was based on circumstantial word of mouth they should have looked at previous convictions and judged your character and the situation (i.e it's highly unlikely you would start trouble with a group of 20 people) - I would appeal the case and see if you can claim damages, but then again, it would be extremely difficult to prove anything. | |
|
| Is British law fundamentally flawed??
Posted: 6/22/2008 6:47:10 AM |
Over the years I've wondered if the present British criminal justice system is fundamentally biased in favour of the accused. Yes we've all seen high profile cases when an innocent man is found guilty... but my guess is that for every such case there are dozens of cases where guilty people are found "not guilty"?
There are a number of British legal rules that arguably favour guilty people rather than establishing the truth. These include... allowing the accused to decide not to be cross-examined, and allowing the accused to be tried without previous convictions, etc to be disclosed. (Unless the accused themselves introduce character witnesses.)
Is it time this bias was addressed and adjusted?? Or does the present system get it right on balance?
Yes, it's very flawed. To put it simply they seem to be more on the criminals side and more against the victims. | |
|
Home
login 
