TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- a first for australia!

a first for australia!

quote:

RE-TRYING people found not guilty of serious crimes would destroy an 800-year-old principle that has served Australia well in protecting citizens' rights, legal groups said today. The New South Wales Government will this week introduce laws to abolish the longstanding double jeopardy rule for serious crimes such as murder, manslaughter and gang rape carrying sentences of 20 years or more. Under the rule, once a person has been acquitted of an offence they cannot be charged with it again. With the Opposition flagging its support, NSW will become the first state in Australia to overturn the convention. Premier Morris Iemma today said the move would allow authorities to make use of advances in DNA and other technology which could prove who had committed a crime. �It's common sense to make use of technology where it can provide certainty and clarity,� Mr Iemma said. �If someone had been acquitted and there was fresh and compelling evidence that in fact they were guilty, using DNA technology to prove that and provide certainty and clarity and greater justice is a commonsense measure.� But the NSW Bar Association says the Government's move is a political manoeuvre to win votes, and could lead to people being put in jail unfairly. �What the Government is doing with this bill is overturning a few hundred years worth of legal history and legal principle,� NSW Bar Association treasurer Robert Toner SC said. �That's a principle that's existed for a long time and it is part of the matrix of protections for people's liberties in our community.� Mr Toner said despite new technologies it was important that the original judgment was respected. �Our concern is that this really is part of a reflex response to the law and order debate with the Government not wanting to be seen as weak on crime,� he said. But Martha Jabour from the Homicide Victims' Support Group said overturning double jeopardy would bring much relief to the family of a homicide victim whose killer had walked free despite evidence they were guilty. �With the advances especially with DNA evidence it will give us a second chance at having these people being brought to justice,� Ms Jabour said. The NSW Council of Civil Liberties said innocent people could end up in jail. �We are concerned that once you start going down this path it means that people can never be certain, even after they've faced trial and been acquitted,� vice-president David Bernie said. �They should be able to know that they will not face trial again.�

link

im kinda 50-50 on this change, would like to hear what you peoples think

Ex post facto ...... wow, this would be interesting. Don't think it would follow un that, but hell here in the states they are letting people off after 15-20 years in prison cause of new tech, the same should be done for people that have got off. But to me, this is treading some serious waters.....

interesting to say the least....

quote:

�We are concerned that once you start going down this path it means that people can never be certain, even after they've faced trial and been acquitted�

Jeez!!! ...because justice doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it, right?

typical liberal garbage. thats sounds so much like someone who defended an acquitted guilty person would say

Australia still sucks anyways

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo Jeez!!! ...because justice doesn't have ANYTHING to do with it, right? typical liberal garbage. thats sounds so much like someone who defended an acquitted guilty person would say

haha, you and your liberal bashing! wouldnt you agree though, that this change is pretty huge in the context of being the only english-colonised democracy(that i know of) that no longer has double jeopardy laws?

at the very least it should provide some fascinating talking points here, the US & britain.

i don't have a problem as long as it is because of new evidence. If a rpist was found not guilty 30yrs ago, and it could now be proved due to DNA he is guilty, fuck him. As long as it is not used to carry out a vendetta against someone found not guilty but the cops don't like the verdict, hence the 'new evidence'.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN haha, you and your liberal bashing! wouldnt you agree though, that this change is pretty huge in the context of being the only english-colonised democracy(that i know of) that no longer has double jeopardy laws?

agree. however that David Bernie, whoever he is, should be counting his blessings no one has ever used him to test the double-jeopardy law. if he had maybe he wouldn't be concerned about "going down the path" of a possible overturned acquittal.

i don't know maybe the author used his statement out of context but it just struck me how naive it was.

quote:

Originally posted by skot_e i don't have a problem as long as it is because of new evidence. If a rpist was found not guilty 30yrs ago, and it could now be proved due to DNA he is guilty, fuck him. As long as it is not used to carry out a vendetta against someone found not guilty but the cops don't like the verdict, hence the 'new evidence'.

yeah, thats pretty much my position as well. im surprised this hasnt got more attention in the media, imo its a pretty fucking big deal.

PROS
- Obvious shortcomings in evidence have a chance to be re-examined. Blokes like Greg Domaszewicz are the reason we're discussing such laws and yeah, if there is a chance for justice to be served - it's all good.

CONS
- Cost.. The courts are already clogged to breaking point.
- People being made to go through trial multiple times. Remember, court trials are not much fun for anyone.. not the defendant (who might very well be innocent), nor the plaintiff and/or their families.
- Personal vendetta's against defendants from police/prosecutors (or whoever) - see previous point.
- Straining a system beyond breaking point jeopardises the rule of law, and may well end in many other cases being rushed through the system at the expense of justice.
- Where is the line drawn for what would constitute 'significant' evidence, enough to open a retrial? Positive DNA identification is obvious, but what about eveidence that might be arguable? Should we conduct retrials based on evidence that is circumstantial?


I dont know, I guess I'm 50/50 on this issue. There must be a reason why the current laws have been in place for so long, but if the laws were to change they have to make it difficult (very difficult) for a second trial to go ahead. At face value the cons outweigh to pros, but justice needs to be served.. at what price though?

I wish they would do this for only one sorry S.O.B.



and his name................


O.J. SIMPSON

that bastard got off free.....

As long as there is new evidence which is then cleared by a judge as "material" i dont hve a problem with it at all..

I say go for it, lets see how it goes in NSW for a few years and judge, because there is really no telling.



In the USA it is a contiutional amendment in the bill of rights which could only be overturned with a constitutional amendment.

quote:

Originally posted by Dupz - People being made to go through trial multiple times. Remember, court trials are not much fun for anyone.. not the defendant (who might very well be innocent), nor the plaintiff and/or their families.

That's a very valid point, and it's one I think needs to be considered in itself. What I mean is that in the case of rape for example, even a mistrial means the victim needs to go through the trauma again and again. i think it should be possible for evidence in such cases being giving as a video recorded file for the jury to see, as opposed to the victim having to regive their testemony.I don't understand why something like that has not been changed as it has been discussed many times over many years. The only real problem arrises when questions that were not previously asked are thought of I suppose.

quote:

Originally posted by sasslife As long as there is new evidence which is then cleared by a judge as "material" i dont hve a problem with it at all..

I think that's the key. If the prosecution can present solid material evidence, which was unavailable during the first trial, to a judge in a preliminary hearing and it is determined that this evidence has a strong chance of leading to a conviction, then I don't see anything wrong with this law so long as appropriate safeguards are in place. I think that it should only apply to the most serious of crimes (rape, murder etc.) to avoid seeing the courts clogged up with capricious or opportunistic retrials and that only evidence of the most incontrovertable sort (i.e. DNA evidence etc.) should be grounds for a retrial.

If this is the manner in which it is eventually implemented then it should only affect a very small number of dismissed cases and even then only when there is a high likelihood that the defendant can be proven guilty. To this extent (and it pains me as a civil libertarian to say this) I think I can cautiously support this legislation.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.