Timmy elsewhere

At the ASI.

This is vile, a stain upon our society

11 thoughts on “Timmy elsewhere”

  1. That fat arrogant turd Clarke–no surprise he brought in such wickedness. The sickening thing is how the entire ZaNu gang will never get the punishment that they deserve. Nor any of them for that matter. Nobody has seen BluLab rushing to undo this or any other ZaNu crap.

  2. “But how?”

    How about a petition on the Gov’t website, and a challenge to all candidates in the upcoming election (including sitting MPs), to either sign it or say why they agree with the proposals?

  3. bloke (not) in spain

    alastair harris
    “you are quite right. But how?”

    Bang a few politicians up for things they didn’t do. (If you can find any). Then don’t compensate them on release. Then you’ll see the law change……..for banged up politicians.

  4. And of course the government can loot you under the “proceeds of crime” act with fuck all evidence, so they screw you both ways.

    Still, when your entire culture is determined by who screams in rage the loudest through the media, is it a surprise?

  5. So Much for Subtlety

    Alex – “Well said. Sounds like once`convicted, the presumption is foregone even if the sentence is quashed.”

    That is often the case with things like legal appeals.

    The question is how strictly ought the liability for damages be. If I go for a drive and I injure someone, I am not held to be absolutely responsible. There is a graded response based on the degree of negligence I exhibit. Should the State be held liable to pay if the system actually worked as it was supposed to? If, in good faith, the police did their job, the prosecutors did their’s, and so on, all resulting in an unsafe conviction? The British legal system is fairly random after all. There is no reason to think it gets the right person all the time. Or even most of the time. The British public does not like to see people who are plainly guilty getting millions. Well, that’s tough, but should people who were arguably guilty get millions too even if there is no particular degree of negligence on the part of the State?

    Sometimes bad things happen. The way to stop it is to concentrate on the state employees who do bad things. Improve standards. Not to throw millions of tax payers’ money around after the event.

  6. Bloke in Costa Rica

    ” There is no reason to think it gets the right person […] most of the time.”

    What? Of course it does. The overwhelming majority of people convicted of a crime are guilty of committing that crime. A slightly smaller, but still overwhelming, majority of people tried for a crime are guilty of committing that crime. It couldn’t be otherwise. Imagine the consequences if it were not the case that “most” cases brought to trial had the right defendant. Because that’s your contention, and it’s bollocks on a stick.

    The point is that under any form of justice that a libertarian would recognise a major element should be restitutive. Although there is no means of making a wrongly-convicted person completely whole again, to say that because the actual guilty party remains unpunished the victim of injustice has no claim is utterly wicked. The mechanism by which we indict, try, convict and sentence people has arisen naturally and organically (hence the name Common Law) so there is a responsibility incumbent on all of us to make sure that if someone is victimised by it they are set right to the greatest extent possible. This is basic Golden Rule stuff. It’s practically axiomatic.

  7. So Much for Subtlety

    Bloke in Costa Rica – “What? Of course it does. The overwhelming majority of people convicted of a crime are guilty of committing that crime. A slightly smaller, but still overwhelming, majority of people tried for a crime are guilty of committing that crime. It couldn’t be otherwise.”

    Why couldn’t it be otherwise? The process is longer than the trial. I am sure the police have a pretty good idea of who did it most of the time. Not always but mostly. Does that then result in that person being charged? If they are charged does the trial go ahead? If the trial goes ahead does it result in a conviction? At the end of all that, you think that most of the time, the guilty person is actually convicted?

    “Imagine the consequences if it were not the case that “most” cases brought to trial had the right defendant.”

    Most crime in Britain is not punished. The jury system does not result in most criminals being punished. Luckily there is a process of attrition so if you commit enough crimes, the system will get it right in the end. Criminals are supposed to commit something like 150 crimes in the year before they are finally sent to jail. So less than 1% of the time does the system work.

    “The point is that under any form of justice that a libertarian would recognise a major element should be restitutive.”

    Why? Why would libertarians take this line? Surely libertarians ought to maximise liberty and just execute the guy?

    “Although there is no means of making a wrongly-convicted person completely whole again, to say that because the actual guilty party remains unpunished the victim of injustice has no claim is utterly wicked.”

    That is certainly not what I said. What I said is that the system works poorly, but it is mostly done in good faith. The police and the Courts are not full of people who are scheming evilly to put people away. They are mostly well meaning people doing the best they can. They have no malicious intent.

    So the world is full of suffering an injustice. The victims of crime are victims too. The neighbours of victims of crime in their own way. We can’t put things right when they go wrong. No amount of government money can heal every wound or right every wrong. The best we can do is punish the guilty or those that look guilty and reduce crime.

    “The mechanism by which we indict, try, convict and sentence people has arisen naturally and organically (hence the name Common Law) so there is a responsibility incumbent on all of us to make sure that if someone is victimised by it they are set right to the greatest extent possible. This is basic Golden Rule stuff. It’s practically axiomatic.”

    Is it basic Golden Rule stuff? The Common Law exists to make lawyers comfortable. It exists to avoid torture. It is by its nature inaccurate. And likely to come up with the wrong answer. But there you go. It is the system we have.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *