Is current sys of justice overly legalistic to serve needs?
-
Dear forummers,
Our politicians always talk about our rule of law. Is it true that our law is so good and just that there is rule of law in this country?
From the way the rich and the elites are getting away from punishment for failing to serve NS to the elite drug offenders not being given the fair punishment under the law, is it not obvious that we do not have a good justice system under the current state of the law.
A poor prisoner would be punished seriously for a minor crime whereas the rich who can engage the best lawyer like in SPH vs NKF/Durai case is the state of justice of our law at the present moment.
It appears that our current system of law is too legalistic and judges and police would rather look for superficially good judgment to close a case and unable to serve the need of the people in delivering justice.
Currently laws are full of legalistic assumptions rather than whether the witnesses are telling the truths against the offenders. So judges being aware are unable to serve the need of justice for the innocent as the case presented by a lying witness look good for conviction. They may do so stay legalistic and unchallengeable especially the other party is a powerful or rich person who may have resources to appeal. So to be safe in his judgment it will be weighted against the innocent poor. There may be too many such cases where the rich are having their way with the judges and this will be how judges and police handle and deliver justice.
So justice cannot prevail because judges are being too legalistic and working to serve their own need - to be legalistic and following current procedures to avoid problems.
Is there not a possibility of witnesses laying sometimes to save their own skins ?
Given such a possibility scenario about our current justice system, where there is really no true justice to begin with how could all believe there is rule of law.
Do we have justices like the Pao Jin Tien or the renown Justice Pao who will go all out to investigate the case for the innocent?
Currently an accused may be innocent but he is simply unable to put up with with procedural assumptions of his guilt due to his inability to get evidences or witnesses to defend his own case.
How many of our judges can openly and publicly say that justice has not been compromised.
Are our politicians judges and prosecutors capable of granting the fullest assistance in protecting the innocent accused who unwittingly at times are just unable to defend themselves against the weight of discretions power and assumptions on the part who administer the justice.
So to that degree of uncertainty people can be innocent and convicted of serious crimes punished by death sentence.
A death sentence can be handed out due to our current uncertainty with witnesses and need to comply with legalistic procedures to avoid controversy.
Therefore there is a strong and logical case to abolish death penalty or harsh sentences because of too many possibilities of witnesses lying or judges being unable to serve the people's needs for justice. -
The law in Singapore is so much controlled by PAP, so that explains.
-
Unfortunately now the laws in almost every country is on the side of the rich or / and powerful politicians. Majority of Lawyers / Judges are no longer using the “rule of law” but are “mules to the ----“.
-
To All these questions, one question still answers it;
"What the fark, can we do about it?" -
Other than voting we can grow more thorns in the side of our compliant policemen and judges by encouraging the rise of super-sleuths like Justice Pao, Perry Mason or Shylock Holmes who have the wit to challenge all the procedural assumptions made by play-safe policemen or judges causing miscarriage due to inability of accused to employ the best lawyers to defend them against questionable allegation.Originally posted by HyperFocal:To All these questions, one question still answers it;
"What the fark, can we do about it?"
Ever since the abolition of jury trial justice has become a farce with judgment being at the whim and fancy of the sole presiding judge who are of course in the pocket of the power that be.
How do we safeguard justice against the money-power possessed by the rich or the play-safe legalistic policemen or judges for the sake of their own rice bowl. -
I thought the whole world is having the same justice system
Even shelock holmes also thrive in tis same justice system. It is because it is possibly the best in existence and tat can help shelock holmes thrive in tis environment. If we abolish tis system, wat system should we adopt for law ? Jury duty makes it more unfair. Making judgement by a different group of people who do not know law is not necessary fairer than an experienced judge. And sometime commoner have to take time to leave their work and follow a case which may drag many years which is a burden to society
Talking about witnesses lying, it is a fundamental problem of men. If we allow witness account, we have to be prepared for them to lie and it will always be around for all system. Now the only thing the system can do is to give out heavy sentence for lying, allow lawyers to scrutinise witness and make them sworn an oath. And if u suffer a grave injustice, the state provide u with the lawyers.
Talking about justice bao, he also live in a system where he follow the law, lawyers fighting for cases but he have to play prosecuter, judge, investigator and administrator of the state at the same time and every crime have to be ended with a confession making torture rampant which is obviously worse off than the current system.
Note we should be talking about system, not the people working in it. In the past time there may be bao jin tien, but if u like to serve justice so much u can still become a modern police investigator. There r always role for investigator in any time.
Lastly, the examples or famous character u quote r either fiction or greatly exaggerated. Name me one real example of a real life shelock holmes in any country now -
this is from a bunch of people who keeps saying "there should be a law against this and that and this..."
frankly, if the law is simple, you'd accuse it of being too simple...
sheesh!