The Flawed Statistic That’s Helping Poison the Brett Kavanaugh Debate
By David French
National Review Online
Only a small fraction of rape claims are proved false, but far more are never pursued, because of insufficient evidence.
It happens every single time there’s a public debate about sex crimes. Advocates for women introduce, in addition to the actual evidence in the case, an additional bit of “data” that bolsters each and every claim of sexual assault. You see, “studies” show that women rarely file false rape claims. According to many activists, when a woman makes a claim of sexual assault, there is an empirically high probability that she’s telling the truth.
In other words, the very existence of the claim is evidence of the truth of the claim.
Here, for example, is Isaac Stanley-Becker writing in the Washington Post: “No crime is more underreported than rape, according to the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, which estimates that the rate of false reporting is somewhere between 2 and 10 percent.”
This same statistic is cited again and again. And it’s being cited to bolster Christine Blasey Ford’s allegations against Brett Kavanaugh. Here it is at the BBC, in Vogue, and at Raw Story. This Vox report goes even farther, repeating an incredible and unverifiable claim that “994 out of 1,000 perpetrators walk free.”
I could go on and on. Writing in Vox, Sandra Newman adds a new twist, not only arguing that false rape reports are “quite rare” but that people who make false claims tend to fit a particular profile. Ford’s claim, she says, “sounds nothing like a false rape accusation,” but it “does sound like millions of real attempted rapes.”
If you believe this data, it’s easy to see why people are so outraged when a skeptic says that an alleged victim hasn’t come forward with compelling evidence. After all, it’s a statistical fact. Women are almost always telling the truth. It’s science.
But there’s a problem. A serious problem.
Showing posts with label Courts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Courts. Show all posts
Tuesday, 25 September 2018
Monday, 26 December 2016
Resurrecting The Courts Spiritual
Going Back to the Future
There is an old saying: what goes around comes around. A second old saying is like unto it: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Trendy lefties in the UK think that Islamic sharia law is OK and that as long as all participants have voluntarily opted into sharia justice there is nothing wrong with it. Sharia courts and sharia justice is all about recognising a minority culture and its values. It is about tolerance. This sort of stuff sounds good over a chardonnay during a balmy summer evening on the pub veranda.
Having separate judicial systems is not new. During the time of the First Christendom, a dual justice system operated. There were the courts spiritual (or ecclesiastical), and the courts temporal (or state courts). The formal separation of the two legal systems goes back to William I.
So, we are re-entering that situation again in the West, but this time Islam is leading the way. Moreover, this long established Islamic tradition has its secular supporters. The Left are proposing and enthusiastically promoting sharia courts in the UK for Islamic people. There's nothing wrong with it, we are told.
There is an old saying: what goes around comes around. A second old saying is like unto it: the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Trendy lefties in the UK think that Islamic sharia law is OK and that as long as all participants have voluntarily opted into sharia justice there is nothing wrong with it. Sharia courts and sharia justice is all about recognising a minority culture and its values. It is about tolerance. This sort of stuff sounds good over a chardonnay during a balmy summer evening on the pub veranda.
Having separate judicial systems is not new. During the time of the First Christendom, a dual justice system operated. There were the courts spiritual (or ecclesiastical), and the courts temporal (or state courts). The formal separation of the two legal systems goes back to William I.
So, we are re-entering that situation again in the West, but this time Islam is leading the way. Moreover, this long established Islamic tradition has its secular supporters. The Left are proposing and enthusiastically promoting sharia courts in the UK for Islamic people. There's nothing wrong with it, we are told.
Saturday, 8 October 2016
A Law Unto Herself
New Maths Calculus and Justice Cunningham
The New Zealand Mongrel Mob and Hells Angels and all the other members of the Criminal Gangs Association (CGA) have, through their national association, petitioned the Solicitor General to ensure that all gang cases be heard before Judge Philippa Cunningham.
Cunningham is the most motherly District Court Judge. She carefully weighs, on a set of scales unique to her, the true costs of any sentence she may hand down. For example, if a prominent well-known member of society commits fraud, theft, or sexual assault, Justice Cunningham is likely to discharge without conviction on the grounds that the mere publication of the famous name would be a price too high to pay, for, say sexually assaulting a four year old daughter. In this infamous case, the accused was a minor-celeb, and he made people laugh. It was too much, according to Justice Cunningham, to have society deprived of his wholesome wit.
The CGA reasons that its petition will advance the cause of all gang members. When trying gang members, Justice Cunningham is more than likely to consider the deprivation and humiliation and suffering already endured by your average member. At worst, Cunningham is likely to dish out a token punishment only, like home detention, unless engaged in gang business.
An example of her enlightened judicial calculus is contained in the following article:
Friday, 23 October 2015
Resisting Resigning the Government To Elites
Statement Calling for Constitutional Resistance to Obergefell v. Hodges
We are scholars and informed citizens deeply concerned by the edict of the Supreme Court of the United States in Obergefell v. Hodges
wherein the Court decreed, by the narrowest of margins, that every
state in the country must redefine marriage to include same-sex
relationships.
The Court’s majority opinion eschewed
reliance on the text, logic, structure, or original understanding of the
Constitution, as well as the Court’s own interpretative doctrines and
precedents, and supplied no compelling reasoning to show why it is
unjustified for the laws of the states to sustain marriage as it has
been understood for millennia as the union of husband and wife.
The opinion for the Court substituted for
traditional—and sound—methods of constitutional interpretation a new
and ill-defined jurisprudence of identity—one that abused the moral
concept of human dignity.
The four dissenting justices are right to reject the majority opinion in unsparing terms.
Monday, 4 May 2015
A UK Court Recognises the Higher Authority of God
A Servant of God
In the UK the materialist world order has taken a bit of a knock. A court has ruled that God exists--not just abstractly, but as a power and authority in the world. He is someone whom the courts must recognise and acknowledge. Expect a secularist display of raw militancy and febrile anger. Or not.
In the UK the materialist world order has taken a bit of a knock. A court has ruled that God exists--not just abstractly, but as a power and authority in the world. He is someone whom the courts must recognise and acknowledge. Expect a secularist display of raw militancy and febrile anger. Or not.
Monday, 16 March 2015
Soft-Despotism vs The Rule of Law
The Law Under The Tender Caresses of Despots
In a Christian commonwealth the rule of law is a fundamental bulwark against absolutist, tyrannical government. Slogans like, "we are a nation ruled by law, not by men" are meaningful and significant, insofar as no one man or no one authority owns and controls the law.
Laws, historically considered (as least within the Anglo-Saxon tradition), are written and promulgated and enforced by a diversity of powers: popular assemblies, titular assemblies, the courts of justice, and the crown. Once laws are promulgated, the power of everyone, including all authorities and kings, is limited insofar as all kings and authorities are under the law thus made. Their authority and power are necessarily limited thereby.
Now, of course, human laws are not divine. There are just and unjust laws. Laws at times need to be repealed, amended, and replaced. The rule of law on its own is, therefore, no guarantee in and of itself of a just society. Rather, the rule of law helps institutionalise the separation of powers and impedes the development of tyranny. But, when tyrants control the law making and law enforcement processes the law becomes no friend to liberty. The USSR--one of the most egregious dictatorships and tyrannies in recent history--could claim that it was a nation ruled by laws. It's just that the dictators totally controlled the law-making processes.
In the soft-despotic state, such as found now throughout the West, a great deal of time is spent on promulgating, approving, and enforcing laws.
In a Christian commonwealth the rule of law is a fundamental bulwark against absolutist, tyrannical government. Slogans like, "we are a nation ruled by law, not by men" are meaningful and significant, insofar as no one man or no one authority owns and controls the law.
Laws, historically considered (as least within the Anglo-Saxon tradition), are written and promulgated and enforced by a diversity of powers: popular assemblies, titular assemblies, the courts of justice, and the crown. Once laws are promulgated, the power of everyone, including all authorities and kings, is limited insofar as all kings and authorities are under the law thus made. Their authority and power are necessarily limited thereby.
Now, of course, human laws are not divine. There are just and unjust laws. Laws at times need to be repealed, amended, and replaced. The rule of law on its own is, therefore, no guarantee in and of itself of a just society. Rather, the rule of law helps institutionalise the separation of powers and impedes the development of tyranny. But, when tyrants control the law making and law enforcement processes the law becomes no friend to liberty. The USSR--one of the most egregious dictatorships and tyrannies in recent history--could claim that it was a nation ruled by laws. It's just that the dictators totally controlled the law-making processes.
In the soft-despotic state, such as found now throughout the West, a great deal of time is spent on promulgating, approving, and enforcing laws.
Monday, 9 March 2015
Rankings and Credibility
Buffoons To the Right and to the Left of Us
In New Zealand we have been entertained for several years by a particular gaggle of buffoons. It has been an outstanding comedy. At the centre has been Kim Dotcom, a merry crim with lots of money, who has made an art form out of teasing, flirting, enticing, and seducing politicians of the ideological left, right, and centre.
Caught up amidst the brouhaha has been one John Banks, ACT parliamentarian who was convicted of a conspiracy to conceal a donation from Dotcom which should have been declared. The Court of Appeal has overturned that conviction and Banks is awaiting a new trial. New evidence has come to light which appears to corroborate Mr Banks's testimony.
The original conviction was courtesy of High Court Justice, Edwin Wylie who declared in the original trial that he found "Dotcom was a good witness". (The trial was by judge, and not by jury).
It seems as though the Justice Edwin Wylie deserves to share the butt of ribaldry, being well joined in with the gaggle of buffoons which have intersected with Dotcom.
The following is from a site which rates NZ judges and according to its ranking of justices in the 2014 Judge Survey Score (1-10), Justice Wylie scored a 6.7 out of 10, which ranked him at 59th out of 62. The narrative reads:
In New Zealand we have been entertained for several years by a particular gaggle of buffoons. It has been an outstanding comedy. At the centre has been Kim Dotcom, a merry crim with lots of money, who has made an art form out of teasing, flirting, enticing, and seducing politicians of the ideological left, right, and centre.
Caught up amidst the brouhaha has been one John Banks, ACT parliamentarian who was convicted of a conspiracy to conceal a donation from Dotcom which should have been declared. The Court of Appeal has overturned that conviction and Banks is awaiting a new trial. New evidence has come to light which appears to corroborate Mr Banks's testimony.
The original conviction was courtesy of High Court Justice, Edwin Wylie who declared in the original trial that he found "Dotcom was a good witness". (The trial was by judge, and not by jury).
It seems as though the Justice Edwin Wylie deserves to share the butt of ribaldry, being well joined in with the gaggle of buffoons which have intersected with Dotcom.
The following is from a site which rates NZ judges and according to its ranking of justices in the 2014 Judge Survey Score (1-10), Justice Wylie scored a 6.7 out of 10, which ranked him at 59th out of 62. The narrative reads:
Justice Wylie is less than an imposing presence on the bench. He generally comes across as feeble and indecisive, commonly asking appearing counsel whether they agree with his conclusions and then changing his conclusions radically if one side – particularly the Crown – suggest (sic) he missed the point. As with most judges in New Zealand, Wylie J can be fair if there is no personal reason not to be. He is an average lawyer who has successfully fought above his weight but, because he commonly is riddled with self-doubt and is cursed with an overwhelming compulsion to please his audience, he is the butt of many jokes by the lawyers who appear before him.Ouch.
Monday, 5 January 2015
Hold Fast to the Traditions and Institutions of Liberty
In Defence of Juries
Why juries? They appear to be a peculiar anglo-saxon institution, at least in terms of their origin. Every so often a talking-head stands up to suggest there has to be a "better way". The assessment of evidence and the determination of guilt would surely be better served by those trained to evaluate evidence and reason to a sound conclusion.
Juries necessarily reflect the general state of society at large. That is offered as one of the great benefits of juries: it is a trial of one's peers. That is one of their perceived benefits. Juries are not made up of elites who control just about everything else. But that also means that if education standards in society generally fall and folk are unable to reason clearly, let alone articulate, juries risk falling into a situation where they are little more than corporate expressions of brute prejudice, self-righteous sanctimony, and general ignorance. We have served on juries and have "insider" knowledge, so to speak.
Why juries? They appear to be a peculiar anglo-saxon institution, at least in terms of their origin. Every so often a talking-head stands up to suggest there has to be a "better way". The assessment of evidence and the determination of guilt would surely be better served by those trained to evaluate evidence and reason to a sound conclusion.
Juries necessarily reflect the general state of society at large. That is offered as one of the great benefits of juries: it is a trial of one's peers. That is one of their perceived benefits. Juries are not made up of elites who control just about everything else. But that also means that if education standards in society generally fall and folk are unable to reason clearly, let alone articulate, juries risk falling into a situation where they are little more than corporate expressions of brute prejudice, self-righteous sanctimony, and general ignorance. We have served on juries and have "insider" knowledge, so to speak.
Tuesday, 29 July 2014
Justice No Longer Blind, But Partial
Taking Care of One's Own
In New Zealand we allow judges to suppress the names of convicted offenders and their victims. Originally this was introduced to allow the court discretion to protect victim(s) and their families. Within a short space of time it has morphed into something quite degraded, if not sinister. Certain judges have taken it upon themselves to decide whether the penalty of the public knowing the name of a convicted criminal would be unduly severe because they were "important" people.
What sort of people would be so regarded, we hear you ask? Well, celebrities for one. They would suffer too much harm from having their names and guilt disclosed, so they have been granted name suppression. You know, upstanding, important folk like Rolf Harris. Once name suppression has been granted, to mention their names in public, whether on a blog, or in the media, or at a social gathering risks the ire of the court. Then there are sports people who are professionals and therefore in the public eye. They too deserve name suppression. Then there are pollies, well-connected people, "pillars" of the community--all these in the calculus of some justices apparently deserve name suppression and having their guilt and offending kept secret.
One gets the distinct impression that these perverse elitist justices think that all whom they regard as their peers ought to enjoy such protection.
In New Zealand we allow judges to suppress the names of convicted offenders and their victims. Originally this was introduced to allow the court discretion to protect victim(s) and their families. Within a short space of time it has morphed into something quite degraded, if not sinister. Certain judges have taken it upon themselves to decide whether the penalty of the public knowing the name of a convicted criminal would be unduly severe because they were "important" people.
What sort of people would be so regarded, we hear you ask? Well, celebrities for one. They would suffer too much harm from having their names and guilt disclosed, so they have been granted name suppression. You know, upstanding, important folk like Rolf Harris. Once name suppression has been granted, to mention their names in public, whether on a blog, or in the media, or at a social gathering risks the ire of the court. Then there are sports people who are professionals and therefore in the public eye. They too deserve name suppression. Then there are pollies, well-connected people, "pillars" of the community--all these in the calculus of some justices apparently deserve name suppression and having their guilt and offending kept secret.
One gets the distinct impression that these perverse elitist justices think that all whom they regard as their peers ought to enjoy such protection.
Tuesday, 24 June 2014
The Christian Heritage of Justice
Being Treated Fairly Before the Court
It is a great boon to live in a just society--and, no, we are not thinking of the faux "justice" of egalitarianism, now so very popular amongst the ignorant and those riddled with the canker of envy. Rather, we have in view the system of justice which enables citizens to seek redress or get their actions judged properly and fairly.
Justice is often difficult to define. The traditions of English common law, however, have developed over many centuries the concept of a fair trial and the principles which undergird it. F.E. Dowrick [Justice According to the English Common Lawyers (London: Butterworths, 1960)], courtesy of a series of lectures by Lord Denning, has provided a summary of the essential principles which make up a fair trial.
It is a great boon to live in a just society--and, no, we are not thinking of the faux "justice" of egalitarianism, now so very popular amongst the ignorant and those riddled with the canker of envy. Rather, we have in view the system of justice which enables citizens to seek redress or get their actions judged properly and fairly.
Justice is often difficult to define. The traditions of English common law, however, have developed over many centuries the concept of a fair trial and the principles which undergird it. F.E. Dowrick [Justice According to the English Common Lawyers (London: Butterworths, 1960)], courtesy of a series of lectures by Lord Denning, has provided a summary of the essential principles which make up a fair trial.
Tuesday, 12 November 2013
Heads Must Roll
Pam Corkery's Calls For a Committee of Public Safety
Pamela Corkery, opinionated provocateur, has chosen an unfortunate turn of phrase writing about a hot public controversy presently incandescing the pages of our newspapers. Some under-age girls have been allegedly date-raped by young men. The police have not yet charged anyone. Pamela has called for "heads to roll", apparently oblivious of the historical reference to the horrendous Reign of Terror.
Maybe Pamela forgot the connection. Or maybe she does not care. Or maybe she is ignorant. Or maybe like a true people's demagogue she finds nothing offensive, unjust, or distasteful in seeing innocent heads roll from the guillotine blades into the tumbrels?
Whatever the case, it does seem that Pamela has chosen to overlook the minor matter of evidence, witnesses, and proof beyond reasonable doubt in matters criminal and judicial.
Pamela Corkery, opinionated provocateur, has chosen an unfortunate turn of phrase writing about a hot public controversy presently incandescing the pages of our newspapers. Some under-age girls have been allegedly date-raped by young men. The police have not yet charged anyone. Pamela has called for "heads to roll", apparently oblivious of the historical reference to the horrendous Reign of Terror.
Maybe Pamela forgot the connection. Or maybe she does not care. Or maybe she is ignorant. Or maybe like a true people's demagogue she finds nothing offensive, unjust, or distasteful in seeing innocent heads roll from the guillotine blades into the tumbrels?
Whatever the case, it does seem that Pamela has chosen to overlook the minor matter of evidence, witnesses, and proof beyond reasonable doubt in matters criminal and judicial.
Saturday, 19 October 2013
A Sad Passing
In Memoriam: Greg King
The Christian world-view has a deep respect for defence lawyers. To some this may come as a surprise, since often Christians are critical of governments and societies which no longer believe in retributive justice. How can these two positions be held in the same world-view? Substantially both views are downstream currents flowing from a deeper truth: the universal depravity of the human race.
Usually, when Christians mention such a belief folks left, right, and centre become profusely vituperative. They splenetically disgorge nonsensical accusations about Christians being "haters of the human race" (an ancient charge, being first recorded by Tacitus to justify Nero's persecution of Christians). But a moment's honest reflection usually suffices to set the record straight. Who amongst us has never lost his temper? Who has never told a lie? The fact that such evils are so ordinary and commonplace as to be regarded as trivial and minor matters amongst us is proof of the universal extent and depth of our common depravity.
Thus, Christians take crime and its right punishment very seriously. But at the same time, the Christian world-view values highly competent, highly skilled defence lawyers. How can these be reconciled? Very easily.
The Christian world-view has a deep respect for defence lawyers. To some this may come as a surprise, since often Christians are critical of governments and societies which no longer believe in retributive justice. How can these two positions be held in the same world-view? Substantially both views are downstream currents flowing from a deeper truth: the universal depravity of the human race.
Usually, when Christians mention such a belief folks left, right, and centre become profusely vituperative. They splenetically disgorge nonsensical accusations about Christians being "haters of the human race" (an ancient charge, being first recorded by Tacitus to justify Nero's persecution of Christians). But a moment's honest reflection usually suffices to set the record straight. Who amongst us has never lost his temper? Who has never told a lie? The fact that such evils are so ordinary and commonplace as to be regarded as trivial and minor matters amongst us is proof of the universal extent and depth of our common depravity.
Thus, Christians take crime and its right punishment very seriously. But at the same time, the Christian world-view values highly competent, highly skilled defence lawyers. How can these be reconciled? Very easily.
Thursday, 15 August 2013
The New Jacobins
Banish One Demon, Inherit Ten More Malevolent
Why should New Zealanders treat the law, the courts, and the justice system with any respect from this time onwards? It appears they are about to become a sick joke. The government has announced it will change the fundamental concepts of justice so radically that if a person is suspected of a crime the courts can restrict their lives so as to place them in a virtual prison. Even if the person went to court, was exonerated and freed, they will be able to be punished by the courts, nonetheless. This from the NZ Herald:
Why should New Zealanders treat the law, the courts, and the justice system with any respect from this time onwards? It appears they are about to become a sick joke. The government has announced it will change the fundamental concepts of justice so radically that if a person is suspected of a crime the courts can restrict their lives so as to place them in a virtual prison. Even if the person went to court, was exonerated and freed, they will be able to be punished by the courts, nonetheless. This from the NZ Herald:
Wide-ranging restraining orders will soon be in use to keep suspected child abusers away from children for up to 10 years. Some will be prevented from going to parks or public swimming pools. . . . High Court and District Court judges will be able to impose the new civil orders on people who are tried for serious offences against children such as incest, sexual grooming or sexual violation - even if they are not convicted of the offence.What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Oh, that's so outdated, dearie. We are going to get really serious about crime. Now the judges can place restraining orders on individuals based on suspicion.
Ms Bennett said the scope of such orders would depend on the circumstances, and could prevent the person from living or working with children, up to blocking any association with children whatsoever, such as sitting next to a child on the bus.
Monday, 22 July 2013
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
On Spiraling into Chaos
The trial of George Zimmerman is now over, and there are perhaps a few things we can learn from the whole sorry mess. Perhaps.
In the aftermath of this trial, we clearly have a highly polarized society. On the one hand, we have those who believe that a young and unarmed black man was targeted and killed simply because of his race, and who believe the “not guilty” verdict is therefore a travesty. On the other hand, we have those who believe that he was a young black man up to no good, and that he was the aggressor in his fatal encounter with Zimmerman. They were relieved at the verdict.
The reason we even have trials is so that we have a ordered substitute for what such polarized societies would do in the absence of trials. What they would do is fight, riot and kill. In advanced cases of this pathology, they go to war over such things. The function of trials is to dampen the ardor of factions, crowds, and lynch mobs, not to inflame them.
Monday, 21 January 2013
Sclerotic Incompetence
In Memory of Murray Wilkinson
The Justice system in New Zealand has some huge holes in it. On the eighth of January, NZ police arrested an 18 year old man and charged him with the murder of an expat Kiwi, who had returned for his summer holidays to Waihi, together with his family. It had all appearances at the time of a random, senseless murder.
For the victim, Murray Wilkinson and his family it still appears that way. But now it emerges that the accused was, at the time, out on bail. Once again we see the devastation that can arise when people arrested and bailed for serious criminal are allowed out on the streets, prior to their trials. Lawyer and former politician, Stephen Franks documents some of the inanities and failings and blameshifting of our judicial system:
The Justice system in New Zealand has some huge holes in it. On the eighth of January, NZ police arrested an 18 year old man and charged him with the murder of an expat Kiwi, who had returned for his summer holidays to Waihi, together with his family. It had all appearances at the time of a random, senseless murder.
For the victim, Murray Wilkinson and his family it still appears that way. But now it emerges that the accused was, at the time, out on bail. Once again we see the devastation that can arise when people arrested and bailed for serious criminal are allowed out on the streets, prior to their trials. Lawyer and former politician, Stephen Franks documents some of the inanities and failings and blameshifting of our judicial system:
Friday, 28 December 2012
Long Time Coming
A Reasonable Judge
There has been a succession of judges in New Zealand who seem to have the view that holding a judicial power to bail constitutes a duty to bail. This infantile mistake has undermined the judiciary. It has also led to innocent people being assailed by violent men and women who were out on bail awaiting trial for previous arrests. In some cases this had led to tragic and completely preventable deaths.
In the Auckland District Court we now have a judge who appears to see through the judicial confusion on this point. Justice Russell Callander has decided that people arrested for violent offences should not be granted bail. It has been a long time coming, but we are grateful nonetheless.
This, as reported in the NZ Herald:
There has been a succession of judges in New Zealand who seem to have the view that holding a judicial power to bail constitutes a duty to bail. This infantile mistake has undermined the judiciary. It has also led to innocent people being assailed by violent men and women who were out on bail awaiting trial for previous arrests. In some cases this had led to tragic and completely preventable deaths.
In the Auckland District Court we now have a judge who appears to see through the judicial confusion on this point. Justice Russell Callander has decided that people arrested for violent offences should not be granted bail. It has been a long time coming, but we are grateful nonetheless.
This, as reported in the NZ Herald:
Saturday, 22 December 2012
Standards of Proof
Compensating David Bain
Children are frequently entertained by "find the mistake" type puzzles. We have found a howler of the genre for you to puzzle over. It occurs in the ruminations of one Sir Bob Jones--an opinion writer in the NZ Herald. We quote the article below. See if you can find the childish mistake. (We should note in Sir Bob's defence that he has been known to sit in his office of an evening conversing with many a glass of high quality shiraz, so maybe he wrote this piece whilst under the influence.)
Firstly, Sir Bob informs us, his dear readers, that he is a man of astute and careful judgment when it comes to New Zealand politics and politicians.
Children are frequently entertained by "find the mistake" type puzzles. We have found a howler of the genre for you to puzzle over. It occurs in the ruminations of one Sir Bob Jones--an opinion writer in the NZ Herald. We quote the article below. See if you can find the childish mistake. (We should note in Sir Bob's defence that he has been known to sit in his office of an evening conversing with many a glass of high quality shiraz, so maybe he wrote this piece whilst under the influence.)
Firstly, Sir Bob informs us, his dear readers, that he is a man of astute and careful judgment when it comes to New Zealand politics and politicians.
Age and experience have a moderating effect and teach one never to rush to judgment on issues without the full facts. It's certainly the case with me, which may surprise readers. But analysis of my columns will show that while I may use colourful or comic comment if a strong view is expressed, it's invariably supported by the facts.So, Sir Bob is in firm possession of the "full facts". From his peculiarly endowed perspective he unleashes a harsh and extreme criticism as follows:
My life-long interest in politics dates back to the 1949 election and the shock as a small boy of seeing tears in my father's eyes following the defeat of the Labour government. I recall every subsequent election and have known nearly all of our prime ministers, commented in hundreds of articles and books on our politics and participated in the process.
Tuesday, 20 November 2012
Justice and Its Friends
Disgusted at Defence Lawyers
The jury system is an intrinsic component of the English justice system we have inherited. Not all Western countries use it, employing instead the bench trial system where a judge or judges make all the court's decisions. It is an important component of the justice system--part of a rich and blessed heritage derived from the first Christendom.
The decline of the jury system is probably inevitable as our society becomes more pagan, less Christian. Juries are not experts in law. They are lay people. From time to time they may make errors of judgment. Calls for "professionals"--judges and lawers--to supersede juries arise. One reason is that, for Unbelievers, justice and judgement in this life is the only justice possible. The idea of the guilty going free and unpunished in this life is hard for Unbelief to bear. People believe that experts should be relied upon to reach safer decisions in a criminal trial. But a fundamental flaw in the bench trial system is that the State ultimately controls the judiciary; far too many states are corrupted by power and money and the implication is that this can easily reach into the judiciary.
The jury system is an intrinsic component of the English justice system we have inherited. Not all Western countries use it, employing instead the bench trial system where a judge or judges make all the court's decisions. It is an important component of the justice system--part of a rich and blessed heritage derived from the first Christendom.
The decline of the jury system is probably inevitable as our society becomes more pagan, less Christian. Juries are not experts in law. They are lay people. From time to time they may make errors of judgment. Calls for "professionals"--judges and lawers--to supersede juries arise. One reason is that, for Unbelievers, justice and judgement in this life is the only justice possible. The idea of the guilty going free and unpunished in this life is hard for Unbelief to bear. People believe that experts should be relied upon to reach safer decisions in a criminal trial. But a fundamental flaw in the bench trial system is that the State ultimately controls the judiciary; far too many states are corrupted by power and money and the implication is that this can easily reach into the judiciary.
Thursday, 8 November 2012
Preening Self-Importance
Judicial Pettifogging
We recently had a judge in this fair country who suspended a court case about very serious criminal offending by a criminal gang. The pretext: judicial offence. The judge believed the police had not treated the courts and judges with suitable gravity and respect. Therefore, like a petulant child, he stayed the prosecution. How puerile.
Here is columnist John Roughan's take on the matter:
We recently had a judge in this fair country who suspended a court case about very serious criminal offending by a criminal gang. The pretext: judicial offence. The judge believed the police had not treated the courts and judges with suitable gravity and respect. Therefore, like a petulant child, he stayed the prosecution. How puerile.
Here is columnist John Roughan's take on the matter:
Friday, 6 July 2012
When Justice Fails
Cynicism and Disquiet
The law courts, where justice is dispensed, are holy places. On display there are the culture's deepest beliefs about truth, righteousness, sin, evil, guilt, and judgment. The law courts are our institutional, established religion writ large.
It is understandable, then, that popular culture, the media, the Commentariat and the chattering classes are fascinated with courts and trials. Particularly when murder is on the docket. The national fixation with the recent Scott Guy murder trial is a case in point. The accused was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Most leave profoundly disquieted. Why?
The law courts, where justice is dispensed, are holy places. On display there are the culture's deepest beliefs about truth, righteousness, sin, evil, guilt, and judgment. The law courts are our institutional, established religion writ large.
It is understandable, then, that popular culture, the media, the Commentariat and the chattering classes are fascinated with courts and trials. Particularly when murder is on the docket. The national fixation with the recent Scott Guy murder trial is a case in point. The accused was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Most leave profoundly disquieted. Why?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)