Justice is so…inconvenient.

Posted on November 3, 2012 by KG

‘Trial by jury questioned
Juror’s illness aborts marathon trial in third week.
A judge has questioned whether lengthy drug trials should be heard by jurors after one expected to take eight weeks was aborted.
n a ruling made on Thursday and issued yesterday, Judge Wilson said authorities should examine the possibility of having judges decide on complex drugs cases without a jury because of the investment in court time and lawyers…’
Hell yes! In fact, why not just set up panels of bureaucrats and bypass ancient safeguards entirely? Who really needs the right to a trial by a jury of his peers, when unelected, unaccountable, out-of-touch elites could do the job far quicker?  After all, the “authorities” the judge speaks of can be trusted, can’t they?  Wabbit would like to know, though, just who these “authorities” actually represent, who they serve. I suspect the answer is that they serve themselves and justice comes a long way down their list of priorities. When bureaucratic convenience is placed ahead of justice then we have anarchy or tyranny.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Justice is so…inconvenient.

  1. GW says:
    November 3, 2012 at 07:29

    Good lord. Trial by jury came about at the end of the first millenium A.D. to stop trial by ordeal with priests as the adjudicators. It was the Pope who put a stop to it. Unhappy with trial by jury, later English Kings would convene the Star Chamber, a body with only judges making the determinations. Not surprisingly, it became an instrument of oppression and was ultimately abolished in 1640 as tyranical in the lead up to the English Civil War. Trial by jury has tremendous pitfalls and problems, but it is by far the most equitable way to handle criminal law. For a judge to be, in essence, asking for a return to star chamber adjudication shows a man with no grasp of history or reality.

    • KG says:
      November 3, 2012 at 07:53

      A nice potted history, GW. Thanks.
      It’s not surprising that the judge has no grasp of history or reality–nowadays they live in a liberal bubble, surrounded by a like minded bureaucratic elite, with a lifestyle far, far removed from that of the ordinary working taxpayer.
      In a socialist country such as NZ the problem is particularly bad because an awful lot of people (especially the young) are now utterly unaware of the balance between law and liberty and the costs of both.

  2. Right Wing Theocrat says:
    November 3, 2012 at 08:43

    Given the already pathetic sentences we get I shudder to think what they’ll do when members of the community are completely expelled from the process.

  3. KG says:
    November 3, 2012 at 09:13

    I feel so fucking angry when I read articles such as that. These bastards, these unspeakable scumbag bottom-feeders don’t mind giving money and shelter to the same primitive, murderous cunts who are killing our soldiers, but they use “cost to the taxpayer” as an excuse to deny justice to their own people and unwind a thousand years of experience…..
    The bastards should be swinging in the wind, food for crows, for even suggesting it.
    And almost the worst of it is, the sheeple–the fucking dumbed-down, soapie/ celebrity obsessed fuckwits with heads full of nothing but shiny trivial shit–those sheeple won’t give a damn as their liberties are destroyed.
    *spit*

  5. tom says:
    November 3, 2012 at 10:29

    Common sense would surely dictate they carry on with 1 less juror?

  6. DianeT says:
    November 3, 2012 at 10:42

    Easy to solve the jury issue.
    Pay them a decent hourly rate, and feed them well at lunch time.

  7. mistress mara says:
    November 3, 2012 at 16:07

    There’s a radical thought DianeT. Pay the jurors enough money that the smarter among them won’t realise that they are being screwed by a system that cynically relies on the notion that the most important piece of the so called “justice system” is paid the least. Spit.

  8. Cadwallader says:
    November 3, 2012 at 17:10

    Trial by jury isn’t perfect but it is the best option currently at hand. Condolences to Greg King’s family.

  9. KG says:
    November 3, 2012 at 17:51

    I notice the people who actually pay for the justice system aren’t being asked their opinions, Cad.

    • Cadwallader says:
      November 3, 2012 at 18:40

      The Law Society is compiled of many serious tax-payers and there’s been much input from that source.

      • KG says:
        November 3, 2012 at 18:53

        Not quite–in fact not remotely–like asking the opinion of the electorate though, is it? My understanding (correct me if I’m wrong) is that the Law Society members are in the main employed in the “law industry”, for want of a better term. Hardly disinterested parties.
        A Bluff boilermaker or a Hastings farmer or the local pharmacist are hardly likely to be members of the Law Society. Why are their opinions of no account?
        Those who vote are entitled to their say before there are major changes to the justice system.

        • Cadwallader says:
          November 4, 2012 at 05:46

          Having a “say” and providing weighty input are fundamentally different. For instance: I have no direct knowledge of the whaling industry but this doesn’t prevent me from being pro-whaling. However my opinion is less cogent than that of a person whose opinions are based on direct experience and training. Lawyers do not only see the results of the jury system but see it, work it and give advice based on these experiences.

  10. KG says:
    November 4, 2012 at 05:58

    “Having a “say” and providing weighty input are fundamentally different.”
    Of course they’re fundamentally different, Cad. That’s merely stating the obvious.
    The “weightiest” input in my view is that of the electorate. Experts in a particular field may view majority opinion as wrong, but nonetheless it’s the right of the people to have society and its institutions shaped based on their opinions. The alternative is inescapably tyranny by an unelected minority.
    In short,democracy (even in the nominal, dysfunctional form we have) involves accepting the unpalatable outcomes along with the good. Even the most superficial examination of the alternatives shows it’s currently the best option.
    And the “weightiness” you speak of is input from very often self-interested parties who have a reputation for trustworthiness somewhere below that of used car salesmen.

  11. KG says:
    November 4, 2012 at 06:07

    The courts belong to the people, not to judges and lawyers and politicians.

  12. KG says:
    November 4, 2012 at 06:20

    While we’re at it, for the sake of economy and administrative convenience, why don’t we remove a few other hard-won rights?
    Like the right to free speech, the right of free association, the right to assemble and protest peaceably, the right….
    I’m sure a panel of experts could be assembled in each case to justify the removal of them.

    • The Gantt Guy says:
      November 4, 2012 at 07:52

      A panel of experts is not needed, KG. At least, not in NZ, where those “freedoms” are given to we serfs by our elected overlords in the Parliament. Freedoms of expression and assembly are granted in the Bill of Rights Act 1990, which can be amended by a simple Act of Parliament.

      Welcome to the Cuba of the South Pacific, where the sheeple are ruled by a Parliamentary Dictatorship. :twisted:

  13. KG says:
    November 4, 2012 at 08:32

    Rights granted to us by politicians are no rights at all. :rant

    • Robervdl says:
      November 4, 2012 at 22:47

      Of course not because we are talking about privileges. Rights are given by God .
      ‘You have the right to remain silent’ should be ‘You have the privilege to remain silent’.

      • The Gantt Guy says:
        November 5, 2012 at 04:06

        Quite right, Robert. And in the Parliamentary Dictatorship that is New Zealand, we have the privilege to freely express ourselves. Unless and until the government decides we don’t deserve that privilege.

  14. john says:
    November 4, 2012 at 12:26

    Lesson 1, Law 101:

    “Those who make the law don’t give a fuck about breaking the law. They only give a fuck about those who don’t make the law breaking the law.”

  15. Robervdl says:
    November 4, 2012 at 22:35

    Law makers at work.

    GOP Leader Boehner Floor Speech Opposing Democrats’ Trillion-Dollar Spending Bill
    http://youtu.be/CvnwOjDjnH4