Hard News: Veitch
619 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 18 19 20 21 22 … 25 Newer→ Last
-
Speaking of juries; I see that 7 of the 12 elected jurors have excused themselves from the Field trial.
Can’t blame them at all; I couldn’t think of a worse jury to be on. But that is a real weakness in the system.
-
So long as we are thinking of reforms, there are a lot of judicial systems in the world that don't use juries at all. Take Italy, for instance: we let the judges do the judging and our courts are a paragon of... oh, shit, nevermind.
-
Take Italy, for instance: we let the judges do the judging
But there in itself could be ....oh shit nevermind me also Gio. I mean what's worse than beating a dead horse.
Hey this could be over at Regarding Auckland thread -
They're not being paid any extra to sit on juries. I think quite the opposite.
Not the point. They're trained to analyse law and tell you why it doesn't apply. Besides, a jury is supposed to be of your peers.
They'd be less bamboozled that the ordinary citizen
About facts? I doubt it. It's not a jury's place to interpret law, but to decide on the facts of a case, according to the law as explained to them.
want to get off unpaid work as soon as possible.
If you want a fast result, draw ballots out of a hat or roll dice. If you use a jury, it will take as long as it takes. Some juries come in in minutes, some in weeks. Depends on the case.
-
Obviously you'll find some glaring holes in that ScottY, but I'd be interested to see what kind of thoughts and ideas other people have
I'm afraid there are some holes. Please take the following as constructive cirticism though.
0. An oath should be taken requiring a higher standard of ethics.
Higher than what? Whose standard? Who decides who's fit to practise?
1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
This is how the system works in places like North Korea.
2. All jurors are trained ethically bound lawyers (for Mark)
As opposed to non-ethically bound lawyers? What is the difference? More importantly, that seems to miss the point of a jury trial - having the right to be tried by your peers.
3.Name suppression is done away with, the notion of innocence until proven guilty is reemphasized.
I'll agree name suppression isn't consistently applied, but it exists for a reason. Surely if someone is considered innocent until guilty name suppression should always be applied.
4. Defendant's jobs are protected by law until proven guilty.
Too simplistic. Take the Rickards case as an example. He was acquitted, but during the course of the trial things came to light that might have suggested to some he wasn't fit to remain in the police force. Should the police have to ignore that evidence?
5. Lawyers are more or less randomly allocated case by case.
Might work, if you take into account things like specialisations, workloads, geographic locations, conflicts of interest etc.
-
Speaking of juries; I see that 7 of the 12 elected jurors have excused themselves from the Field trial.
Can’t blame them at all; I couldn’t think of a worse jury to be on. But that is a real weakness in the system.This still sounds odd. The original notice says how long the trial is expected to take and this is repeated as the ballot process begins and you get several chances to excuse yourself from jury service.
Why does the legal process in a trial take sooo long anyway?
-
Our legal system is half a step advanced from "trial by combat", especially in the civil area, but not much less in the criminal area.
I'm a person who believes in civic duty, but I will move heaven and earth not to be in a jury again. Talk about PTSD...
Juries may well be the weakest point in the system, something I've no direct experience of, and the apalling predictability of district court outcomes is hard to defend, but does this render it dysfunctional? Reform the laws of evidence, augment the jury process, allow judges some inquisitorial powers etc, sure I'm with all that.
I was surprised, at first, by the apparent leniency of Veitich's sentence. Hodge's comment, that the sentence was broadly consistent with others, somewhat reassured me but I now seriously wonder about the sentencing guidelines.
Despite the delays, I don't think the victim was poorly treated by the law through this process. Her assailant, his lawyer and PR team yes, but the law? I'm not so sure...
-
Surely if someone is considered innocent until guilty name suppression should always be applied.
I feel like we're now at the point where this needs to happen. I accept the concepts of "open and transparent justice" but feel like the complete disregard for the equally important "innocent before proven otherwise" by our media and the majority of citizens means that transparency is now costing us natural justice.
-
I feel like we're now at the point where this needs to happen.
And why didn't this happen in the first instance of this one?Seems it should have been the first port of call.
-
Surely if someone is considered innocent until guilty name suppression should always be applied.
I too have considered this, and it seems mostly to have merit,
But then I think about cases where someone in a position of trust (eg. doctor, clergy, teacher, scoutmaster, etc.) has violated people in their care... It often happens over many years to many individuals, all too scared to complain.... but with the publicity of one person going to the police, many more come out of the wood-work... Which then helps prove the case, or at least dispel the false/malicious complaint defense that you can use against a single complainant.
-
And why didn't this happen in the first instance of this one?Seems it should have been the first port of call.
It couldnt have been. If you recall.... it was a news article BEFORE it was even reported to the police.
I have no doubt that if the complaint was made when it all happened, name suppression would indeed have been sought.
-
..I couldn’t think of a worse jury to be on.
I'd couldn't think of anything better. All social conservatives should experience the inside of a slammer for a few years.
What was he supposed to have done again?
-
But then I think about cases where someone in a position of trust
Yeah, but often these are the ones with name suppression and keep their jobs(doctors for one) and continue to practice after their case.
-
What was he supposed to have done again?
Slave Labour/Fraud but don't quote me. :)
-
What was he supposed to have done again?
Got caught?
-
3 months on a trial when you know that almost everyone you’re listening to can’t be trusted.
And there’ll be a lot of “he said, no he didn’t” type evidence.
And there’s not even the crime show diversion of the Bain trial to make it moderately interesting.
-
Completely off topic...
Poneke's back...
http://poneke.wordpress.com/ is viewable by the public again.
I mention it only because I know quite a few who read and post here, also did so there in the past...
-
(Thanks for that FletcherB!)
-
As another lawyer:
0. An oath should be taken requiring a higher standard of ethics.
I have been fairly involved in looking at the recent Lawyers and Conveyancers act, the Rules that followed. I think it would be fair to say:
a) lawyers are one of the most heavily governed professions, all with the intention of enforcing an ethical basis to our business
b) lawyers consider ethics on a day to day basis more than any profession I can think of,
c) discipline of lawyers is at the extreme end of harsh.I would also say that a lawyer acting as a jury is more correctly known as a judge. There is simply no need for juries. You could have judicial panels for more serious offences.
And ScottY has already made the point: courts and trials are the most publicly visible part of the legal system, but they represent a tiny part of the system. Even most criminal proceedings involve no trial.
What the public tend to see are the difficult cases where there is room for doubt - either because the facts aren't clear or the way they fit within the law isn't clear. Throw in some wayward reporting and you've a recipe for crowd dissatisfaction.
-
Logan O'Callahan- I strongly suggest - taking into account your 'one of the most heavily governed"
that the medical profession is at least - but probably more- as heavily governed?"There is simply no need for juries."
Get a grip mate. I'd like to see an office liken that of the Continental examining magistrate here, but I'd hate to see the jury system disestablished - simply because - however political/warped/attempts-at-bias the selection procedure can be skewed by- it IS a jury of one's peers. (Which is why I really dislike mark taslov's views.)
-
Cool, thanks a lot for your replies I really appreciate them.
2. All jurors are trained ethically bound lawyers (for Mark)
This would at least double the number of lawyers we'd need in New Zealand.
Kyle, I am quite religious, though not in a churchy sense, and here is what I actually think this whole thing has been about. 12 disciples=12 jurors.
But Giovanni and latterly Logan clear that up with
'don't use juries at all'
and
'no need for juries'.
Sounds good to me.
I rolled a dice to decide whether to respond to this Mark;p
Besides, a jury is supposed to be of your peers.
Not inherently in any dictionary website I subscribe to. It's just a group of people.
Thank you for your longer reply Scotty, if I may adress it point by point;
0. An oath should be taken requiring a higher standard of ethics.
Higher than what? Whose standard? Who decides who's fit to practise?
I levied this in anticipation of how to deal with the corruption that would surely result in total deprivatization (not sure if this is the right word) of the system. As Logan pointed out;
lawyers are one of the most heavily governed professions
And I don't dispute that, I'm merely angling towards stricter requirements were the entire legal system put on the government payroll.
Which is my main point. Paid for in large by big business.
1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
This is how the system works in places like North Korea.
For obvious reasons I felt a little short changed by this answer. While not wanting to trouble you too much ScottY I hope you can give me a better one. I am all too well aware that the prospect would seem nightmarish to one already established within the current system, however I am still curious to understand the pitfalls in a democratic society.
Regarding 3 and 4, I agree, I regret including them. But my main reasoning was in anticipation of something like the DPRK being mentioned, and the need for transparency. In order for transparency to work though there would need to be a conscientious time consuming reeducation campaign to destigmatize the court system to reach a point where Gareth's
"innocent before proven otherwise"
stands the test of the staffroom gossip.
"it's still being tried Reggie, doesn't mean jack till the fat lady pops."
ie. idealist waffling. Name suppression should have been left off my list. as you say and further reiterate with the Rickard's case ScottY;
I'll agree name suppression isn't consistently applied
I'll leave that one there.
However back to my main point, possibly the least attractive for lawyers to deal with but still I'm hoping for an answer1. Private legal practice is outmoded. All legal representation is provided by the state. (a significant pay cut for some)
I am aware that in court work represents a tiny part of the system. But I am curious as to the numbers and the hours.
Off on a tangent now. In consideration of a female student who was recently released from prison after about a month none the worse for wear for assault. The Vietch case has seemed to transpire in a remarkably similar vein to how things work in Beijing, with compensation as a primary object. The only singular difference being that the initial negotiations between Vietch and Dunne-Powell would have been carried out with police mediation and the whole thing would have been cleared up years ago without the cover stories, tell all exposés, private investigations, medical prescriptions, extensive waste police man power transport, lies rumours, skullduggery and GPS. At least not until after the fact. Which still would have been years ago. Does $10,000 cover all that?
-
You dislike my views Islander because you don't see a lawyer as your peer.
-
Personally I have no real issues with juries Islander, merely that I was considering a way to help subsidize a state provided legal system, to ensure the poor get as fair a go as the rich. My thoughts on juries are pretty benign. My main misgivings wold simply be, there is no required standard of education or intelligence required to serve on a Jury, and I've been pretty disturbed by instances of a friend doing jury service, who in the end didn't really know, had a guy feeling, but gave up on that gut feeling, because they got sick and tired of dealing with what they interpreted to be malevolent misguided fundamentalism by a majority of your peers.
-
hence, trial by combat.
-
I levied this in anticipation of how to deal with the corruption that would surely result in total deprivatization (not sure if this is the right word) of the system.
But wouldn't there be even more corruption if the state controlled everything? The NZ system is largely free from corruption - it works, so why change it? The thought of the state having control over how you defend yourself and who defends you leaves me with a chill. It sounds a bit Big Brother to me. Political systems where the state is all-powerful lend themselves to endemic corruption and bloated bureaucracies.
While not wanting to trouble you too much ScottY I hope you can give me a better one. I am all too well aware that the prospect would seem nightmarish to one already established within the current system, however I am still curious to understand the pitfalls in a democratic society.
I agree my answer was a bit glib, but this really relates to my previous point - state control leads to corruption and bureaucracy. This can be seen in China, North Korea, and any other one-party regime you can name.
I am aware that in court work represents a tiny part of the system. But I am curious as to the numbers and the hours.
Most lawyers don't do court work. They're mostly property lawyers, or commercial lawyers, or patent attorneys etc. Even litigators don't spend that much time in the courtroom.
I guess we'll just have to disagree on this one. You clearly have a view that the state can be trusted and can be relied on to get it right. I have the view that if you concentrate too much power in the state that power is likely to be abused.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.