Novelist. Author of APSARAS and tales from the beautiful Saigh Valley. First person to quantify spiritual values.

Total Pageviews

Wednesday, 6 March 2013

Judges and the cost of justice

So, top judge, Neuberger, presumes to tell the Government that the plans to reduce taxpayers expenditure on Legal Aid will lead to people taking the law into their own hands and ought to be scrapped. It seems to be a one way conversation because judges are apparently wilfully ignoring Parliamentary guidelines on the deportation of foreign criminals, preferring instead to rule on their rights to a family life. Why the judges don't ask themselves why the criminals didn't think of their families before committing the crime, I don't know, but what we do know is that the bewigged Snooties know no bounds when they commit public money to the legal process as if the cost doesn't matter.
Amongst the costs of the legal process are those dedicated to maintaining the jury system, despite much recent evidence that it is a waste of tax-payers hard earned cash. A jury was dismissed in a case which the judge described as straightforward after failing not only reach a decision but understand what they were meant to be doing. Stupid jurors have been caught flirting with the defendants and playing with their mobiles when they should be paying attention, totally out of touch with the concept of DUTY. Already we have complicated trials that are deemed beyond the intelligence of lay people, so why not extend the practice, because, and I hate to say this, but a great many people are uneducated? The main reason is, of course, judges such as Neuberger want to keep the legal profession at the lofty heights of social acceptability, where from their ivory towers they can pronounce on the animal behaviour of those whose lives they can never hope to suffer. They are so far out of touch that they continue to put the needs of the guilty before those of the victims, even if it means flouting the will of the Law-Makers.
I think that the legal process must change to make it more cost effective and speedy use of court time. The Crown Prosecution people make assessments of the likelihood of a conviction on the evidence found by the police. People sent for trial should all be pleading guilty, especially with the better quality of evidence available, especially scientific. The proof of guilt shouldn't need to be as stringent as it is at the moment with the guilty often escaping justice because of procedural malfunction, rather than effective refuting of the evidence, for instance. In the past, the judges have proved too strong for the system to be changed but I believe it is time to make a root and branch reassessment of the judiciary and prison system especially with regard to costs because citizens who have to pay for it through the tax system can automatically be classified amongst the victims.
For those who think this may be a step too far should remember that Barristers and solicitors, create or manufacture nothing. Their income nearly always comes either directly or indirectly from somebody elses creativity, somebody else's hard work!

No comments:

Post a Comment