Posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2014, at 15:24:24
In reply to Re: lab, posted by alexandra_k on August 1, 2014, at 2:01:36
so... i didn't know this... but our legal system is quite a bit different from the US. well, actually, i guess i did know that, but i wasn't quite sure on...
we don't have a written constitutional document. so apparently our constitution is some blend of things like 'culture' and 'tradition' and 'the treaty'... that these all form part of our constitution.
- parliament
- the executive
- the judiciarywe have inherited the British system of parliamentary supremacy. while the queen or her representative in this country (the governor general) needs to sign off, that is a formality.
the US has stuff written into the constitution about the balance of power.
the rise of parliamentary power... a significant increase in the number of statute (government laws) that are passed... so the courts are more about interpreting whether this or that statute applies to this or that case than they are about interpreting whether this or that precedent (from common or judge made law) applies to this or that case.
i do think politicians have too much power over here. the head of aviation security got caught dodging behind airport security gates... minister of something... one of our politicians appearing in the high court for taking a bunch of money from another, smaller party... it makes the whole thing a joke, really. they asked some of his peers (you know, wealthy people from around his suburb) what they thought of that and they seemed to think his curfew was a bit unnecessary...
abuse of power...
sports people are in the media seems like all the time for acts of violence. seems that the more famous they are the more we tolerate them doing whatever they like. one of them was part of some national campaign 'zero tolerance for domestic violence'. he was in court for hitting his girlfriend. rugby player. not bowls... i don't know the details of the case (how hard the hit was etc)... but seems to me people like this should be held more accountable PRECISELY BECAUSE a generation of kids look up to them as heroes to emulate rather than giving them light sentances because of their fame.
makes a joke of justice, i think.
apparently... the british system is adversarial, too. so the judge is only allowed to consider evidence brought before them (that means the skill of lawyers is important). and the lawyers argue against each other and the judge basically declairs a winner. this is opposed to an 'inquisitorial' system where the role of the judge is more active in asking questions and trying to seek out the truth.
apparently... trade-offs between how expensive the process is... and the justness (or similar word) of the decisions...
i guess like most things we went with 'cheap'.
so... apparently people used to apply for legal aid and they could take that (the government paid or subsidised or whatever) to most lawyers. so... some lawyers were known to be particularly good or whatever so they got a lot of business. but now the government (in an attempt to keep court costs down) has a public defenders office with lawyers specifically and you simply get assigned. apparently (i wasn't wrong) they ARE young and inexperienced. given very high case loads. and so on... and the more experienced people are complaining that they don't get work...
i think by the sounds of it our justice system might be about as f*ck*d up as our health system abotu as f*ck*d up as our education system... not that i can point to any as wanting to be like that... but damn... law doesn't sound like a particularly good professiont o get into, i don't think.
blah blah something about big law and corporations... i can't get interested in / excited about rich people getting richer... i don't know what to say.
something something something too about the government wanting to get some law through that means government has more members on university council... sigh.
poster:alexandra_k
thread:1058481
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20140718/msgs/1069034.html