So, some slime-bag has been charged with the rape & murder of a two year old toddler. Frankly a fair trial is more than this slime-bag deserves: a lot of wasted expense to protect someone who’s clearly guilty. This government has done a lot to rebalance the justice system in favour of the victim, to increase the chances of worms like this being put away; but it’s not enough; still, he and his slick lawyers get to play expensive games at the cost of justice. What about the civil liberties of the victims? It’s political correctness gone mad.
A courts martial has acquitted several of our army heroes from malicious accusations by Iraqi civilians who were no doubt eager, at the expense of taxpayers, to get lucrative handouts in compensation. Thank heavens for our system of fair trials, where the evidence is rigorously tested by lawyers under a presumption of innocence, which was able to acquit them thanks to rigorous protection of the civil liberties and rights of the accused. But why were they prosecuted in the first place? Just to appease liberals. It’s political correctness gone mad.
I’m going to call bollocks on this one.
If you believe slimebags in the first instance shouldn’t receive a trial, then what you are essentially arguing is that English law does not, in fact, need the trial system at all. We can simply use emotive responses, based on the seriousness of the offence and the reaction they induce, in order to appropriately punish the offender. Details such as whether or not they were actually guilty become irrelevant.
As for the second, several others were found guilty. One of the Iraqis, as I understand it, received some 95 injuries before dying in the army’s care. Lucrative handouts would be fairly pointless, because he’s still dead.
Yes, what was written was indeed, deliberately, bollocks. I didn’t think I was being that subtle…
Oh. Whoops.
Probably not too subtle; I’m just impossibly dense sometimes (I’m blond…)
Feel free to kick me in the shins when we meet.
Errrr Martin. Seems all that time hanging out with eggheads has destroyed your sense of irony
Hmmm…irony?
If you’d written it, Ruthie, I would have twigged immediately. With geeklawyer, though, one can never quite be sure….
As a sidenote, I’m considering anonymising my blog, lest it destroy my career. On the other hand, most US law academics have a personal blog, and find it advantageous to identify who they are. Thoughts?
It very much depends on your personality and what you are trying to achieve. Practising lawyers have to be cautious about a number of issues, particularly client confidentiality and pronouncing an opinion on matters which they may be requested to write an opinon on the following week. (Which explains why I very rarely blog about the legal topics that I know the most about. Or more to the point, those topics that people pay me to have an opinion on).
I sometimes wonder whether any judicial aspirations I may have held have been destroyed forever…but in a world where many people in positions of authority simply pander to the populist view, I like to think that I get some credit for expressing an honest view. Curiously those people who might be expected to be sensitive about my activities, and who have expressed a view, see no conflict.
People write blogs for many different reasons. For some its a marketing tool, for others a networking tool or a form of therapy. If you’re not prepared to be a little bit honest about yourself then there seems little point in writing a blog. I think the clincher is this: are you strong enough for others to know you and also know your weakenesses? If you have any doubts on that score, better to stay anonymous.
But more about this subject…and lots more besides at the blogging conference. Do come along.
Good points all, ruthie. You’re a star.
I’ve been thinking about it for the last hour or so, and ultimately…bugger it, I’m going to keep the named domain.
It’s certainly not a marketing or networking tool (conflictoflaws.net would probably fall into both categories there) - it’s simply a place where I can express rather silly opinions on ephemera. Of course, I do have to be careful about subject-matter as well (my students, for example), although that caveat is probably more significant in the practising world.
Not sure if I’ll be able to make it to the blogging conference yet. Mid-to-late May is usually a rather busy time, what with the students’ exams and everything. Of course, if I can possibly make it, I will, what with your promise of leather-wearing and everything…
Geeklawyer - when you tire of a life in the law (”how could that possibly happen?” I hear you ask) I think you could be a writer for the Daily Mail. They wouldn’t notice, or be bothered by, the irony, I’m sure.