Continuing along the theme of my previous post; Human Rights: stuffed by legalese? I came across the following at Allcopped out…
“Our court systems rely on concepts of evidence that are very dated. Decisions on fact are essentially taken by lay people – magistrates and juries. This might be a good thing, given some of what is emerging on “expert” decisions in the Crown Prosecution Service and seeps out on bureaucratic manipulations in the like of Baby P, though the same flaws are present in our court rooms because what can be presented in court is severely limited by cost, representation and ‘legal rules’…” Read More
ACO concludes by asking… Could we not come up with a better system of public scrutiny? I don’t really mean new court systems – something systemic that would not have to rely on ‘personal integrity’ or ‘value ethics’ acting in secret?
Thought provoking? I hope!
- Do our courts know what evidence is? (allcoppedout.wordpress.com)
- Corruption of the judiciary: Where do we go for help? (ppjg.wordpress.com)