King of Hits.co.uk - Your Views Messageboard

IMPORTANT NOTE:
You do NOT have to register to read, post, listen or contribute. If you simply wish to remain fully anonymous, you can still contribute.

Home

Forums

	Messageboards	Categories Show latest posts

Welcome, Guest
Please Login or Register. Lost Password?

Messageboards

King of Hits

Your Views Messageboard

Post a new message in "Your Views Messageboard"

Name:

Subject:

Boardcode:

Message:
(+) / (-)

Emoticons





More Smilies

[b]honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Randall wrote:[/b]
[quote][b]Misa wrote:[/b]
[quote]My concerns are that the proposal is at best a sticking plaster (which may actually distract from, or even be used to justify, other unfair aspects of the sysyem) and that at worst it may lead to situations in which someone could be held without approriate notification to concerned parties.
[/quote]

Agreed.

Public scrutiny of trials, whether by the press or by members of the public, is an essential check on the power of the state. I wish the press would do a better job of this, but that's for another thread.

It's easy to imagine how anonymity might be extended to a defendant on remand, and then through his trial, and then post-conviction to "protect victims." We then have a secret trial all the way from arrest to prison and no one knows who was prosecuted, who accused him or what the evidence was.

This is exactly what lots of campaigners would love. They want a a guilty verdict to follow automatically from a woman's accusation without any requirement for evidence or examination of the allegation. And any evidence the defendant might want to use in his defence isn't allowed.

The petition for defendant anonymity is playing right into the hands of groups who want to destroy the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. The Guardian supports the petition, which should ring alarm bells loud and clear.

I'd go in the opposite direction. No more anonymity for complainants.[/quote]

The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten.

Making it all public is tackling it backwards. 
We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated.

Of course it all needs watching, and to be accountable, but this could be monitoring  by an independent  body, rather than relying on the vague possibility that the Daily mail might notice an injustice.[/quote]

Enter code here

Topic History of: Anonymity
Max. showing the last 5 posts - (Last post first)

Author	Message
honey!oh sugar sugar.	Misa wrote: honey!oh sugar sugar wrote:The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten. I'm not so sure about this, honey!oh. It may be that we are inevitably corrupted, sooner or later, and openness is a protection against that. But I think just as great a danger are our fear and suspicion – openness is a guard against these too. We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated.I'm not sure that a human system can ever ensure that. It's not so much about the Daily Mail reporting on a case, but the principle that any member of the public can walk into a courtroom at any time and witness proceedings, and that a jury of regular folk make the final decision based on what they have seen in court. If you were to lend me some money (heaven help you), when I paid you back, I would not simply hand you an envelope stuffed with notes, but I would count it out in front of you, or ask you to count it out in front of me. I would do this not because I don't trust you, but because this simple act can ensure that even an innocent mistake cannot soil our relationship. That openness is a guard against much more than corruption, though it is that too. (btw I'm a bit skint at the moment, but I'm sure JK has a few bob kicking about if you're really in need) Funnily enough, I never lend money at all, but will freely give it. Expecting it back doesn't help long term. I agree, there is no guarantee against corruption, but they could at least try, instead of accepting it. I am just sick of altering my behaviour to accommodate gobshites.
Misa	honey!oh sugar sugar wrote:The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten. I'm not so sure about this, honey!oh. It may be that we are inevitably corrupted, sooner or later, and openness is a protection against that. But I think just as great a danger are our fear and suspicion – openness is a guard against these too. We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated.I'm not sure that a human system can ever ensure that. It's not so much about the Daily Mail reporting on a case, but the principle that any member of the public can walk into a courtroom at any time and witness proceedings, and that a jury of regular folk make the final decision based on what they have seen in court. If you were to lend me some money (heaven help you), when I paid you back, I would not simply hand you an envelope stuffed with notes, but I would count it out in front of you, or ask you to count it out in front of me. I would do this not because I don't trust you, but because this simple act can ensure that even an innocent mistake cannot soil our relationship. That openness is a guard against much more than corruption, though it is that too. (btw I'm a bit skint at the moment, but I'm sure JK has a few bob kicking about if you're really in need)
Randall	Misa wrote: In a rational and decent society, we should not be allowing the views of victims to affect the way we deal with criminals. Or defendants... But yes, I strongly agree. As a society, we give up the function of enforcing the law to an independent and dispassionate system. If we didn't, we'd have lynchings and vigilante justice. Errrr… those seem to be making a comeback don't they? But this social agreement to hand over the justice function to an independent, dispassionate system only works if it really is independent and dispassionate. Introducing The Victim's Voice to the process takes us a step away from impartial rule of law and a step towards mob justice, such as it is.
honey!oh sugar sugar.	Randall wrote: Misa wrote: My concerns are that the proposal is at best a sticking plaster (which may actually distract from, or even be used to justify, other unfair aspects of the sysyem) and that at worst it may lead to situations in which someone could be held without approriate notification to concerned parties. Agreed. Public scrutiny of trials, whether by the press or by members of the public, is an essential check on the power of the state. I wish the press would do a better job of this, but that's for another thread. It's easy to imagine how anonymity might be extended to a defendant on remand, and then through his trial, and then post-conviction to "protect victims." We then have a secret trial all the way from arrest to prison and no one knows who was prosecuted, who accused him or what the evidence was. This is exactly what lots of campaigners would love. They want a a guilty verdict to follow automatically from a woman's accusation without any requirement for evidence or examination of the allegation. And any evidence the defendant might want to use in his defence isn't allowed. The petition for defendant anonymity is playing right into the hands of groups who want to destroy the right to a fair trial and presumption of innocence. The Guardian supports the petition, which should ring alarm bells loud and clear. I'd go in the opposite direction. No more anonymity for complainants. The only reason we need the whole procedure to be visible is because we know it is rotten. Making it all public is tackling it backwards. We need to change the system so that people CANT be stitched up and mistreated. Of course it all needs watching, and to be accountable, but this could be monitoring by an independent body, rather than relying on the vague possibility that the Daily mail might notice an injustice.
Misa	Randall, more openness rather than less, I agree. This 'anonymity for life' business, irrespective of whether there is a conviction, seems crazy. hedda, FAIR's suggestion that only certain people would receive this protection is certainly disappointing. Presumably, our dear host would not have been protected, last time around, by their kind of anonymity, as he had a previous conviction. The notion of victimhood is quite unhelpful, generally, I think. We should be wary of those who would be victims, and equally wary of those who would label us victims. Victim advocates presumably fall into the latter category. In a rational and decent society, we should not be allowing the views of victims to affect the way we deal with criminals.