Random Play: You wouldn’t read about it.
32 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last
-
Still seems like a game, a case is constructed and not revealed till court day. Then is adversorial not finding out what happened.
Unlike in TV shows like Boston Legal or LA Law, there really aren't that many surprises in most trials. The process of discovery, and the depositions process, mean that each party normally has a fair idea what the other paty's angle is. And it's difficult to introduce new evidence without giving advance warning to the other side.
I'm not convinced the Civil Law system operating in countries such as France does a better job. The aim may well be to to find the truth, but isn't someone still making a decision based on the evidence put before them?
I may be biased (having worked all my career under common law systems), but I wouldn't rush to throw away several hundred years of Anglo-Saxon jurisprudence.
I'm not suggesting our system is perfect. But it works most of the time.
-
Andin- I said what I think based on what I know to date: I dont think an innocent man has been found guilty. The other option - for me- is to wait & learn what further evidence/interpretation of evidence comes up.
ScottY - I mentioned my appreciation of English Common law: I think (from my tiny insights into that system) it can be improved. And learning from both Continental law (paticularly French) and Scots legal system - both legal systems with histories as long as - or longer than - English Common law, could be A Good Idea.
-
I did 4 units of a law degree waaay back in the 1960s and wound up with a profound appreciation for Common Law and 'our' (essentially, English-based case & statute) law system- and worries.
"In my youth," said his father, "I took to the law
And argued each case with my wife:
And the muscular strength, which it gave to my jaw,
Has lasted the rest of my life." - Lewis CarrollInteresting thread. Having wasted my academic years on frivolous subjects, I now realise that I'm shamefully flaccid on these things.
-
O, your jaw's okay Groke!
-
It's funny you should be talking of things South American, Graham. I have always believed it's not a part of the world I would ever want to visit - being of a nonintrepid nature, as I am. But a friend of mine came back recently from a trip that included La Paz, Lima, Buenos Aires, Rio de Janeiro and ended up in Antarctica via the Falklands. I have to say that her photos of BA and La Paz in particular made me think twice.
-
a judicial direction for KEEPING dna material for at least 30 years would be a bloody good thing-
You can't just keep the DNA material, which would be relatively easy to do. If you're going to use that DNA material in a trial to convict someone, you need all the other evidence for that trial. Evidence for a murder trial might take up 10 - 20 metres of storage space in an evidence lockup.
Police unfortunately don't have infinite storage space, and they have to eventually make decisions about which cases to keep evidence for, and which to destroy.
(the case under discussion is a little different. Lots of evidence was destroyed through other means, ie the house being destroyed).
-
I avoid this problem by reading the newspaper a week late, usually on someone's coffee table. If it was important then, it is important now. If it wasn't...
It's a very pleasant practice.
If I could watch the TV news a week late, well, there would be nothing to watch.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.