Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options

Should there be a change in the Justice System?

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Do you think that we could benefit from a reform? If there was a reform, what would you like to be included in it?

I would like to see a change in the way that young people are dealt with. I would change the age of prosecution from 16 to 14 because there are a lot of younger people out there who cause so much trouble and get away scot free, because they are under 16. I think this is wrong, if they are old enough to run amok in the streets and cause trouble, then they should be dealt with severely.

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    hrmmmm...

    I guess I'd say that they should go heavier on people who misbehave under the influence of alcohol. Teach them to be more responsible.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I think they should actually get a clue, and some common sense for dealing with criminals.
    They should also make it illegal to claim compensation for trivial reasons, and shut down firms that offer compensation to anyone who asks for it.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I thought the earliest age of prosecution was ten.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by monocrat
    I thought the earliest age of prosecution was ten.

    If it is, then my apologies. What i meant was the age at which someone can be charged.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The age of criminal responsibility is ten, but how many ten year olds are prosectued? Not many I bet!

    I know what you're saying R&S - you think they should be punished rather than given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by BumbleBee
    The age of criminal responsibility is ten, but how many ten year olds are prosectued? Not many I bet!

    I know what you're saying R&S - you think they should be punished rather than given a slap on the wrist and told not to do it again!

    :yes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Punish people more severely, make the term "life inprisonment" mean life, and not just getting out for good behaviour after a short time. Deter further crime by showing the harsher punishments if you step out of line. All my suggestions would probably be impractical and unenforceable though, in this overly PC society!

    NB: Why is not possible to disclose names of criminals in the media, "for legal reasons"? I never understood what that meant; can someone help?!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Simply put Luce, its because in societies which claim to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", to splash an alleged criminal's identity all over the news would be essentially to condemn him/her to the jury of of public opinion which is demonstrably uninformed as to the totality of the particular case.

    It removes the liklihood of chairing a fair and impartial jury since most would have heard of the case and formed a presumption about the guilt or innocence of the accused before any evidence was presented in context.

    This is one of the glaring problems in the US judicial system. Untold numbers of accused individuals have had their lives, careers, reputations, etc. destroyed regardless of the outcome of the case itself simply because of the notriety they received in the press and media.

    This is what has been happening so often in the fictitious "war of terror", where innocent muslims have been falsely accused of having links to 9/11. Even after being cleared they are thenceforth anathema simply on the basis of public misperception and cultural ignorance.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Clandestine
    Simply put Luce, its because in societies which claim to uphold the principle of "innocent until proven guilty in a court of law", to splash an alleged criminal's identity all over the news would be essentially to condemn him/her to the jury of of public opinion which is demonstrably uninformed as to the totality of the particular case.

    I think Luce is talking about after conviction. A recent case over here has meant that the local Police Force have been prevented from using a convicted criminal's picture and name in an anti-crime campaign.

    Apparently to do so would breach his human rights!


    BTW He is still inside for the relevant crime.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    AH well that wasn't clearly indicated in her question. Once cinvicted its a fait accomplis and well within the public domain to braodcast I should think. The only exception that might preclude that might be situations where the convistion is under appeal or was obtained on highly dubious grounds and thus under review in some other fashion.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You see that level of common sense is what the Police had. The person had been convicted and the information was already in the public domain.

    Unfortunately the common sense level of the judges wasn't as high and so they sited the Human Rights legislation as a reason for agreeing with the Plaintiff's case.
Sign In or Register to comment.