Metanet Forums

I'm interested in what you guys think about some of the issues raised in Australia's yearly moan about our legal system, particularly those brought about by the Matthew Butcher case:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009 ... 515022.htm

Most of the arguments, propositions and general bitching revolve around the right to silence, the right to not be tried twice for the same crime (double jeapordy), the use of the legal defense of 'self-defence', and jury issues.

-Should the accused be able to bring up new information during a trial that wasn't mentioned in police interviews? Essentially, should we have the right to silence?
-Is the right to self-defence too broad, and too easily used and abused?





There's also another issue I have with this case, this one is probably very controversial.
I believe that that once an accused has been found NOT GUILTY by a jury of his goddamn peers, he should not have his reputation utterly and repeatedly destroyed by the media. Here's a little sample:
"Neither Barry McLeod nor Scott McLeod, who smiled and laughed with supporters as he walked free, commented to waiting media. " - The Sunday Times (http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0 ... 48,00.html)
And that's not the worst of it. You can probably imagine what the opinion pieces were like. Of course, the Sunday Times is a rag, but that doesn't make this ridiculous reporting any less harmful, and most of the television news networks and other papers also took this approach to reporting the case. This went on for about a fortnight.

Anyway, I feel that this is such a problem that i'd seriously consider supporting legislation that somehow prevented the media from blatantly attempting to cast doubt over the guilt of the accused, after they have been found not guilty. I know this is how it's done, I know this is how its always been done ("a dingo stole my baby!" :P), but I don't think it's acceptable at all.

Eh, in short, I believe in the concept of free press. I don't think there should be any legal issue about casting doubt over the accused-then-found-guilty. That's the job of a tabloid newspaper, to remind us how the good newspapers would treat such a story. Heh, did you watch To Kill a Mockingbird on Fox Classics tonight as well? I can see how that might have started this.

Oh, and in response to the right to silence issue, having this right would be like having the right to write the answers to your exam paper in a different answer box to the question number. Sure, the lecturer can figure out where you got your numbers from, but it's still breaking the rules. Kind of a stupid thing to do, I think.

I think what bugs me most about this case is the idea that police morale is going downhill. The justice system is in place to get, well, justice. Justice comes after the fact, always, because it's almost like a communally driven form of revenge. So, why would police offers become disillusioned on their shifts? If they were going to get injured before, they're still going to get injured. Nothing has changed. The only thing that has changed is the concept that if they do get injured, they might not be able to get revenge on the people who did it.

I must say, though, that I don't like the preferential treatment given to police murder. Or rather the depreferential treatment given to those who commit it. In Australia, I read somewhere probably unnotable, that the murder penalty is doubled if the victim is a police officer. How outrageous that society would value a police officer as being twice the human being as any other. I strongly disagree with this.

Sorry to be tangential.

KingAlex wrote:Heh, did you watch To Kill a Mockingbird on Fox Classics tonight as well? I can see how that might have started this.

Nope, but maybe I should watch it :)

SlappyMcGee wrote:So, why would police offers become disillusioned on their shifts?

I think the concern there is more about the effect cases like this will have on the way the public views police officers, and what people think they can get away with, etc. If it's easier to wriggle out of a charge of assaulting police, people may be more inclined to assault.
I'd certainly be more hesitant to punch a cop if I knew they were gonna go mandatory on my ass.