Posts by ScottY
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Putting aside the fact that the term is permanently tainted.
A 5 year plan wouldn’t really work in a country with a 3 year electoral cycle.
I think that's possibly one reason why Mark thinks our system doesn't work so well.
-
Thanks Mikaere.
-
yet you are convinced a five year plan is a bad thing because it's called a five year plan and at some point in history some people had some bad five year plans, so the whole notion could only be suggested with tongue in cheek.
To be fair those bad plans were really REALLY BAD plans.
And I don't mean "bad" in the way teh yoofs mean it.
I'm not against planning. But the moment I hear "five-year plan" I immediately thing Stalinist Russia. Change the name and you're on to a winner. Say "half-decade plan" or "quarter-score" or something else.
-
No, representative democracy is NOT the best system. Consensus democracy, such as is practiced by the Greens, is much better at getting good decisions. It is very hard work, and very slow. But it is also produces strong buy-in from the participants - and isn't that the whole point ?
Mikaere, what do you define as "consensus democracy"? I'm not convinced that it and representative democracy are necessarily always different things.
-
The primary weakness of democracy is that there is no consideration for making long term plans, and this was something that particularly concerned me on your blog about your son raising his fist Russell. The illusion of empowerment for individuals is insignificant in a nation where our government can't even make a truly attainable five year plan
Mark, I don't get it. Weren't you supposed to put a sarcasm tag in your post. You're not actually serious, are you?
Five year plans? How did they work out for Stalin and Mao?
-
Russell, what about my point -- would people care how the jury had behaved had there been a conviction? Most juries convict. Most people in fact plead guilty. I don't think the issue would arise. The problem is that people only see justice being done if there is a conviction, not an acquittal. Both are justice however on the system that we have.
I agree, and I made a similar point on another thread a week or two ago. We only remember the ones that "got away with it".
-
The system's far from perfect, but I agree with Rich. The system has developed over hundreds of years and is the way it is for good reason. Everything can be improved, but I prefer evolution to revolution.
We shouldn't chuck out the entire jury system on the basis of one verdict. And if we make judges the arbiters of facts they won't always get it right either. People make mistakes.
I'm not against people debating the issue. But the answers aren't simple and they're not obvious.
-
Or not.
If all 12 were inattentive and incompetent then Bain really did win the lottery.
In any case we're arguing the unknowable, because none of us were there to witness any of it.
I don't think what I'm proposing - that maybe there was actual reasonable doubt - is that controversial. However, I'll desist from this line of argument, because it's getting me nowhere and I don't want to be a bore.
-
No ScottY - they were hearing legal argfument-
I don't think their determination there had been a miscarriage of justice can be so easily ignored.
If they had thought Bain was clearly guilty, despite the flaws in the Crown case, they'd have followed the Court of Appeal and dismissed Bain's appeal.
They clearly had doubts. So did the jury. Some of whom may have had a nap during proceedings. Most of whom were probably diligent and attentive.
-
Oh come on! The guy was asleep!
Maybe. But the other 11?