Al666 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 So as so many nationalists are on here, I'd like to know how you can continue to support a party which claims to stand for Scotland and Scottish values, yet is going flat out to get rid ofone of the basic tenants of our legal system, despite the fact that both the police and judiciary believe it will lead to a massive increase in wrongful convictions. I believe that this is of particular relevance to football fans, given that the Offensive Behaviour at Football and Threatening Communications (Scotland) Act 2012, has been completely slated by one of the countries' leading sherrifs. http://www.thecourier.co.uk/news/local/dundee/dundee-sheriff-criticises-anti-sectarian-legislation-1.82470 As senior members of the Holyrood Assembly have also been critical of this fundamental changetoour centuries old legal system http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/scottish-politics/10669195/Major-SNP-split-emerges-over-ministers-vitriolic-corroboration-speech.html Please explain why I should believe that this bunch of chancers are anything other than a shower of self seeking power mad morons,. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 The police back getting rid of it http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-back-plans-to-abolish-corroboration.1386075457 Dare i ask what party you support? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Getting rid of something when you are not clear of the alternative seems crazy. That the SG is doing this on a key matter of law and that the stated intention is to get more prosecutions and therefore (you would think) more convictions is a real worry. People slag of the house of lords but I think this is an example of where a second house should work to curb the excesses of those in power. Why not remove other key elements of the law in the name of 'access to justice for victims' ? We can't cope with the number of prisoners; as it is and those who we can catch in the current regime we cant afford to either punish or rehabilitate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Getting rid of something when you are not clear of the alternative seems crazy. That the SG is doing this on a key matter of law and that the stated intention is to get more prosecutions and therefore (you would think) more convictions is a real worry. People slag of the house of lords but I think this is an example of where a second house should work to curb the excesses of those in power. Why not remove other key elements of the law in the name of 'access to justice for victims' ? We can't cope with the number of prisoners; as it is and those who we can catch in the current regime we cant afford to either punish or rehabilitate. I think thats more to do with them being unelected. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaz Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I agree, it's disgraceful and hasn't been properly thought through. I hope a close friend or family member of one of those who pushed it through is convicted of something serious on poor, uncorroborated evidence. It doesn't for one moment however make me think that I will be voting anything other than yes in September. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I think thats more to do with them being unelected. I get that; but when elected members push thro something just to get more convictions you are into dangerous ground when you don't have any mechanism to stop them or to make them think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Which other countries require corroboration to secure a conviction? Would I be safe from being 'fitted up' in England for instance? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael W Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 It's very unlikely this will sway the votes of people. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of people won't give a shit about this. Personally, I find this development depressing. Another SNP move to erode civil liberties and criminalise the Scottish population - they really have been utterly dreadful where justice is concerned. It's more indicative of the SNP rather than anything else though. The supposed justice secretary has been hell-bent on getting rid of corroboration since Cadder showed up Scotland's outdated attitude towards legal representation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tubbs Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Which other countries require corroboration to secure a conviction? Would I be safe from being 'fitted up' in England for instance? That's a fair point - but in that case you need to look at the whole range of procedures and safeguards to get to a final balanced position. Our criminal law has developed with this at its heart - if you take ti away what is the wider impact ? The SG know this hence the request for a look at what other safeguards are needed - common sense would suggest that the whole package is then looked at as a whole and then go thro parliament. I can only wonder why they want to push thro a populist policy at this stage ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ForzaDundee Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Can't wait to hear what the P&B law squad think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The big chair Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 That's a fair point - but in that case you need to look at the whole range of procedures and safeguards to get to a final balanced position. Our criminal law has developed with this at its heart - if you take ti away what is the wider impact ? The SG know this hence the request for a look at what other safeguards are needed - common sense would suggest that the whole package is then looked at as a whole and then go thro parliament. I can only wonder why they want to push thro a populist policy at this stage ? Common sense isn't exactly a description I'd use to describe a system whereby someone could be acquitted of a crime, despite an admission of guilt, if there was no further collaborating evidence. Surely if a system is flawed to that extent, it's not really worth getting worked up about keeping it. I also don't get your claim that this is a (politicly motivated?) populist policy, could you expand on that please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamaldo Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I'll be honest my knowledge of corroboration isn't great so I'm not going to defend the SNP to the hilt on this, nor will I attack the opponents of the decision to abolish it. On initial viewing, it is one of those matters where you really can see both sides of the argument as legitimate. People can ask themselves what they see as worse: Is it a person guilty of a crime getting off scot-free, or an innocent man or woman being found guilty of a crime they didn't commit? Both results are devastating for the people and families concerned. Assuming that wrongful convictions and acquitals happen (we shouldn't but it's hard not to), will this actually make any difference? If not, then we can argue that this decision is pointless, but we could also argue that people should not be attacking the decision quite so vociferously. I plan to read up on it more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ecto Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Like most things there are pros and cons to this, it has been a long time aim from the Scottish Justice Minister to abolish this and if he cannot achieve this when he has a majority he never will Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 The police back getting rid of it http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/police-back-plans-to-abolish-corroboration.1386075457 Dare i ask what party you support? Yeah, because the police are the body you should be deferring to on matters of evidential standards and they're not at all biased in favour of diluting due process in favour of higher conviction rates. This Better Together conspiracy Kenny MacAskill bumped his gums about included Christine Grahame, an SNP member of over 40 years' standing and chair of the Holyrood justice committee, and the Scottish Greens. So much for the new politics when a single-party government rides roughshod over Holyrood's committees and its fellow supporters of independence. Which other countries require corroboration to secure a conviction? Would I be safe from being 'fitted up' in England for instance? This is irrelevant. Corroboration exists in the context of other criminal justice provisions, relating to, among other things evidential admissibility, evidential standards, jury requirements and double-jeopardy laws. What Kenny MacAskill has done is remove the corroborative protections without simultaneously adequately strengthening other standards for a jury conviction, tightening the rules of evidential admissibility and cross-examination, or to the prior changes to double-jeopardy laws. It will now be possible to convict someone solely on the basis of a post-acquittal confession. That should be deeply troubling for those who believe in procedural justice. Common sense isn't exactly a description I'd use to describe a system whereby someone could be acquitted of a crime, despite an admission of guilt, if there was no further collaborating evidence. Surely if a system is flawed to that extent, it's not really worth getting worked up about keeping it. I also don't get your claim that this is a (politicly motivated?) populist policy, could you expand on that please. The issue isn't "despite an admission of guilt". The issue is the circumstances in which that admission of guilt was obtained. It is a fundamental principle of justice that you should have the right not to incriminate yourself and for a conviction to be based on a confession obtained, for instance, in a police log-book, or before someone has been charged, or before they have had access to a lawyer, or before they are aware of the implications of such a confession, is contrary to that principle. Just remember this is why MacAskill wanted rid of corroboration. The Cadder judgment after which he accused Scotland's two most senior jurists of knowing nothing about Scots Law. It had absolutely f**k all to do with sexual crimes, which already have modified rules concerning corroboration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Yeah, because the police are the body you should be deferring to on matters of evidential standards and they're not at all biased in favour of diluting due process in favour of higher conviction rates. He said the police are against it, they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 He said the police are against it, they are not. No he didn't. He said the police believe it will lead to an increase in wrongful convictions. Which they admitted in evidence before the Justice Committee. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al666 Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 It's very unlikely this will sway the votes of people. In fact, I'd wager that the majority of people won't give a shit about this. Personally, I find this development depressing. Another SNP move to erode civil liberties and criminalise the Scottish population - they really have been utterly dreadful where justice is concerned. It's more indicative of the SNP rather than anything else though. The supposed justice secretary has been hell-bent on getting rid of corroboration since Cadder showed up Scotland's outdated attitude towards legal representation. I'll be honest my knowledge of corroboration isn't great so I'm not going to defend the SNP to the hilt on this, nor will I attack the opponents of the decision to abolish it. On initial viewing, it is one of those matters where you really can see both sides of the argument as legitimate. People can ask themselves what they see as worse: Is it a person guilty of a crime getting off scot-free, or an innocent man or woman being found guilty of a crime they didn't commit? Both results are devastating for the people and families concerned. Assuming that wrongful convictions and acquitals happen (we shouldn't but it's hard not to), will this actually make any difference? If not, then we can argue that this decision is pointless, but we could also argue that people should not be attacking the decision quite so vociferously. I plan to read up on it more. Thanks, one of the reasons I started this was to get people thinking about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Al666 Posted March 2, 2014 Author Share Posted March 2, 2014 No he didn't. He said the police believe it will lead to an increase in wrongful convictions. Which they admitted in evidence before the Justice Committee. And if you read the full article in the Herald, it mentions that the police originally opposed the move, and will no doubt do so again when they realise that the change will make it easier for them to be convicted as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 And if you read the full article in the Herald, it mentions that the police originally opposed the move, and will no doubt do so again when they realise that the change will make it easier for them to be convicted as well. You didn't answer my question, do you support a party, if so which one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
~~~ Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 No he didn't. He said the police believe it will lead to an increase in wrongful convictions. Which they admitted in evidence before the Justice Committee. Do you just look for arguments in every thread you comment on? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.