legal roulette
random babble - I don't like criminal law cases where the advocates for the defence play legal roulette. there really needs to be some sort of unit in place credible of obtaining unbiased and reliable evidence. video interviews etc. the victim already goes through so much psychological damage, they can't escape clarification or cross examination but somehow something in the nasty procedure could be collated and prepared in advance.everything in criminal law is nasty.
posted by juice @ 11:50 PM
4 Comments:
agree with your opinion. there are totally nasty people, who always try to take advantage from the unlucky ones.
-indra-
funny you mention this babe...one of the choices for my crim paper involves whether or not to make the trial process less traumatic for victims of sexual assault by making it harder for the defence. i think i'm going to bail and do the "easier" question of whether the defence of necessity should be abolished...
If instead you accuse the perpetrator of committing a terrorist offence, you can bypass trial altogether.
hey holz, well ... i really doubt any reality in just about making defence harder - because the onus is on prosecution to prove. defence can sit back at times and right to silence da di da.. and in some cases, defence can cause delay, and their only tactic is to discredit and traumatise until you seem like you have no credible (victim) witness. Which seems to be what happens - and which distresses me. but be wary when someone says change onus or whatever for defence - i don't think there's much to change.
or yes.. bypass trial by making some ASIO friends.
Post a Comment
<< Home