>>Look, do not let the legalese mumbo jumbo be a substitute for
>>common sense. The legal profession wants monopoly on deciding what
>>is pro- and and what is anti- social
True. That is one reason we have trial by jury. But by the same token the police are just as firmly convinced *they* should have a monopoly on deciding what is anti-social. It isn't safe to give them that monopoly either. Yet that is exactly the result if we allow them the unfettered power to decide who will go to jail. Provisions such as automatic refusal of bail pending trial, mandatory sentencing, etc essentially give the police prosecutors the power to determine who will be imprisoned and who will go free.
Merely by exercising their discretion whether or not to prosecute, they effectively substitute for the judge jury and executioner.
>> (just like the doctors want the monopoly on deciding what is good
>>for your health). That monopoly is manifested, inter alia, by
>>excessive legal formalism - a person can be caught in the very act
>>of committing a crime, but if the proper legal rituals are not
>>followed to the letter, he will walk innocent.
That is extremely rare. In my experience the legal system works like this - trials are won and lost primarily on the merits, the legal technicalities are applied selectively to justify what judges and juries feel is appropriate.
I would never rely solely on the fact that there was some technical legal deficiency in the other side's case. Judges will always find some way around the technicality if they think the merits of the case deserve it.
But none of that matters if the alleged offender has already served their sentence by the time they get to trial, as is apparently the practice in California. True, that does put a stop to "legalese mumbo jumbo", but this is not "common sense". It is medieval injustice.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20021005/0f30a08b/attachment.htm>