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 |
Article 6 Human Rights Law
TOPIC: Article 6 Human Rights Law
|
|
Re:Article 6 Human Rights Law 7 Years ago
|
|
Often in government/opposition/activist groups the particular aim in isolation put forward is "an excellent ideal" goal (not always, of course). So as I have not followed what "the latest" so not aware of the aim of the pre-recorded interview idea. I am guessing the idea, like anonymity / testifying behind a curtain is to assist a real victim give their evidence about a crime that is extremely distressing and soul distroying if the person becomes known to the public in general. So a good aim.
Problem is one objective is then promoted forgetting Article 6 and other objectives, that are already reasonably well served.
If all positions and the overall objective of true justice for all involved is maintained then solutions can be found that make it better for all.
For example, every testimony that is given evidential weight pre-recorded or not should be "checked out" to the satisfaction of the prosecution, the police, the defence and maybe another independent body to ensure that selected responsible individuals do delve into the testifying person's life to check all possible facts. For example, did the person really live at such and such a place at period stated, did they have contact with the accused and was there any reports at the time to doctors, schools or whatever. The person, if telling the truth in sincerity then kepts their anonymity but the court and jury gets "a certified accepted, substantiated facts list" and stated acceptance by prosecution, defence and independent body . Thus anonymity maintained but not just the person's word only. That has been the most ridiculous thing I have ever heard. From my school years I was under the impression that now we were all educated we as civilised people did not go in for kangaroo courts, hearsay, and fantansy. Of course, I was wrong and mislead. We as a race are as stupid as ever.
So the government needs to also eliminate completely "you will be believed" and the testimony needs even "more than the current cross examination". Most crime is in fact an example in that all testimony and evidence is expected to be tested by objective evidence thus building a case by various facts. For murder and other crime cases at times fail because the police have failed to put the evidence together and thus even when the general sense by all is the accused is most likely guilty the case still fails.
So personally I am for all reasonable safeguards for all parties involved but at the same time nothing must be used to hide evidence. Now anonymity is used to hide the real person and their real circumstances thus in reality creating more criminals and crimes in that the complainant, the police, the justice department, the judge, the CPS and so on - all know the trial and the acceptance of a story from a witness "is perverting the course of justice" and they do nothing. Then often an innocent person (Or at least legally) is convicted by a jury who have been deceived and mislead.
So now we probably have more "kinda of organised crime" in the justice system than outside it, and if the new objectives do not address the overall goals in Article 6 then they are acting in the same way as other officals who assisted the mafia and such like.
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|