Reporting For Duty
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
Categories
The Legal Issues (and Criminal Justice) Discussion Thread
Dragonpol
https://thebondologistblog.blogspot.com
I thought I would create a new thread on one of my interests outside of all things James Bond - the field of Law. As some of you may know I have a Masters degree in Law (a two year Law conversion course) and my interest blossomed from there. I am sadly not a Law practitioner but I retain the interest in current and historical legal issues and criminal justice.
So this thread is the place to discuss Legal Issues of the past or present on any area of UK law (or if you prefer US law) and beyond.
Let's get the ball rolling...
[18 March 2016 Thread Update]:
I've amended the thread title to include Criminal Justice as part of the thread's ambit so that members can give their thoughts or issue their criticisms or indeed praise of the criminal justice system in the UK and further afield. This includes the decisions of the courts in criminal cases, the penal system, criminal law legislation and case law and new proposals for reform of the criminal law by the UK Government of the day or other governments around the world.
So this thread is the place to discuss Legal Issues of the past or present on any area of UK law (or if you prefer US law) and beyond.
Let's get the ball rolling...
[18 March 2016 Thread Update]:
I've amended the thread title to include Criminal Justice as part of the thread's ambit so that members can give their thoughts or issue their criticisms or indeed praise of the criminal justice system in the UK and further afield. This includes the decisions of the courts in criminal cases, the penal system, criminal law legislation and case law and new proposals for reform of the criminal law by the UK Government of the day or other governments around the world.
^ Back to Top
The MI6 Community is unofficial and in no way associated or linked with EON Productions, MGM, Sony Pictures, Activision or Ian Fleming Publications. Any views expressed on this website are of the individual members and do not necessarily reflect those of the Community owners. Any video or images displayed in topics on MI6 Community are embedded by users from third party sites and as such MI6 Community and its owners take no responsibility for this material.
James Bond News • James Bond Articles • James Bond Magazine
Comments
Aren't we giving criminals too many rights? What's wrong with a more brutal system of punishment? Crime rates keep rising yet the moral orthodoxy keeps claiming our current system works far better than some of the older ones.
Or fascism? A return to law and order and capital punishment?
I don't think personally that the threat of capital punishment ever stopped anyone committing a crime. I'm opposed to its reintroduction to the UK.
I'm with you there. Being Swiss I can tell a thing or two about liberalism in general.
Switzerland, sadly, has cultivated a legal system where the criminals get the role of the victim much too often and the victims' destroyed life counts nothing, as if the victim had it coming.
Repeatedly the "difficult childhood" card is played and we had prominent cases in the last decade where horrible crimes got punished with next to nothing.
There is a term that found its way into the Swiss vocabulary (Kuscheljustiz) literally translated: Kuddly Justice meaning our justice system is almost cuddling the culprits.
No question, something like the death sentence would be unimaginable in Switzerland and rightly so. But why can a group of 18 year olds beat up an adult so badly he becomes invalid and has brain damage and our courts have ruled suspended sentences on them.
Point is, many verdicts are a joke, an insult to the victim or the victim's loved ones. Random acts of violence cause innocent people to die, the criminals are sentenced only 6 years imprisonment because it was "a foolish act and we'll never do it again, we promise" and they get out after 2!
I realise our prisons are full enough as it is. I realise that keeping criminals imprisoned many more years costs us a lot of money. But I also realise that many prisons, at least in my country, are a paradise. Some criminals have a better life in prison than hard working, law-abiding citizens have at home.
Innocent people are convicted too sometimes, I know. But will that ever change? I think we can agree that in sufficiently sophisticated countries, the chance of going to prison while innocent is pretty slim. Maybe, cruel as it sounds, we must accept those tragic cases and move on. Or better still, we must improve our research methods and our forensics tools and whatnot. But when there can be no mistake about the criminal, his motives and the tragedy that befell an innocent person because of said criminal, why so many rights and so many indulgences? Statistics also seem to indicate that recidivism is at an all-time high. It's just too easy these days. You do a bad deed. You spend some time in jail. You get out and you can start all over again. When Ra's in Batman Begins says that criminals thrive on the indulgence of society's "understanding", I am always taken out of the movie while applauding that very statement.
And worst of all are the procedural errors or technicalities or whatever the legal term is. I'm not stupid; I know why we have measures for those. But too often criminals can evade imprisonment because some cunning lawyer found some creative 'evidence' of somebody slipping up during the arrest or during the processing of the legal documents or whatever.
It's a complicated mess but it doesn't feel right.
One ore thing. Death penalty? No. Lynch mobs, yes. Which could result in the same thing. Let's say you catch a terrorist after he blows up a building in the name of his faith, killing dozens of people in the process. Forget about a trial. I'd say we give this man his freedom. We announce when and where he'll be set free. In the middle of an overpopulated square in the middle of town, at noon. Nobody talks about death penalty, no sir. But perhaps we can agree that during an hour or so, we don't have to protect him either.
I know my last paragraph is wrong for so many reasons. It's just in my nature to consider certain crimes so terrible that there can be no redemption, no second chance, no justice. Only a quick removal of the criminal element from society.
"The Massively Outdated Offences Against the Person Act 1861 Shows How Well the Common Law System Works"
https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/articles/offences-against-the-person-act-1861-needs-reform.html
I'm not sure at all that I'd agree with that entirely - would you care to elaborate on that, @Troy?
Are you referring to the UK or US legal systems or just legal system in general?
Everyone can use the law to protect their interests, but the costs of legal action has a chilling effect. Everyone is allowed legal representation in court, but the system is privatised with day rates varying widely depending upon the quality of the representation. The rich can therefore employ the best lawyers and run up the highest bills, and presumably get the best outcome - otherwise they would not pay. Usually the loser has to pay legal costs of both parties, which can be ruinous. Many people have been bankrupted not through fines, but in legal costs. Even if the poor person wins, the rich person can appeal, which increases the costs - effectively playing "double or quits", until the poorer person has to consider if they can continue. This can often be seen when people take on newspapers. Even the state can have problems trying to prosecute rich corporations - see the difficulties in prosecuting newspapers for bribing public officiaLs, when the public officials who took the bribes were found guilty.
Near where I live, Starbucks have opened a new shop without planning permission. They remain open because Starbucks have appealed for retrospective planning permission, and the Council dare not close the shop now because they cannot afford the legal costs of fighting them, who would only appeal any Closure Notice.
You can also see how criminal law favour the rich - such as corporations- over private individuals. When 'ordinary people' try to hack into corporate IT systems, the corporations go mad, call in the FBI and try to extradite and prosecute. But when corporations hack into our computers, they get away with it - eg a few years ago it was found that the Google Streetview cars were stealing domestic WiFi passcode but no action was taken, Google apologised and that was it. Another example - when a contestant cheated on a TVs quiz show by getting is wife to cough on the correct answer, he was jailed; but when the same TV channel was found to be cheating by running phone ins where it was impossible to win, once again no one was jailed or fined.
https://www.oxford-royale.co.uk/articles/interesting-legal-cases.html
http://ukscblog.com/new-judgment-r-v-jogee-ruddock-v-the-queen-jamaica-2016-uksc-8/
Here is the judgment in full also:
https://www.supremecourt.uk/cases/docs/uksc-2015-0015-judgment.pdf
No idea what some decent people living in "bad areas" have to put up with. I remember
One UK judge saying he " Admired " a burglar.
Sharia Twain?
In the meantime, there has been a massive legal aid bill run up that the taxpayer will have to pay. It's like the appeals in the Colin Howell murder case. All for nothing, except wasting good public money that could be used in much more worthy cases. Northern Ireland has one of the highest legal aid bills in the world. I don't think there can be any winners in these types of cases, and certainly not the hard-pressed taxpayer!