Thursday, August 31, 2006



An affront to justice

Normally, you expect that when someone is acquitted of a crime, the government does not punish them for it. But not, apparently, in the UK. An Iraqi man accused of making a video identifying potential terrorist targets will apparently be subjectd to a control order - despite being acquitted on all charges by a jury. This goes beyond double jeopardy to strike at the very heart of justice itself: the man has been found innocent, but will be treated by the government as if he is guilty regardless.

Really, if they're going to behave like this, you wonder why they even bothered with the pretence of a trial at all.

6 comments:

What is the difference betwen your example and a woman who has been acquitted in court for smacking her kids, but then being treated by the state ( CYFS) as if she is guilty and not being allowed to have her kids back, and the child that she has custody of is in threat of being removed?

Isnt that some form of double jeopardy also? Its happening all the time

Posted by Dave : 8/31/2006 04:49:00 PM

Very little. But then, I don't think I've ever supported such treatment.

Posted by Idiot/Savant : 8/31/2006 06:03:00 PM

Talk about diverting the discussion Dave.

Posted by Anthony : 8/31/2006 07:24:00 PM

Australia has also just imposed it's first-ever control order on a guy, about a week or 2 after he had his conviction for receiving money from Al-qaeda overturned on appeal.

I think it's getting appealed tomorrow.

see
http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/separation-of-powers-may-be-under-threat/2006/08/29/1156816898568.html?page=fullpage
and
http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/thomas-control-order-silly/2006/08/31/1156817006116.html

cheers

Posted by Anonymous : 8/31/2006 07:30:00 PM

With child custody there are (at least) two people with rights to consider, the child and the parent. So the family court has to balance the welfare of the child against the rights of the parent.

Parents rights advocates often seem to carry on as if children were mere chattels of their parents and not human beings in their own right.

Posted by Rich : 9/01/2006 12:24:00 PM

I think daves point still stands

Is the parent a REAL threat to the child? is taking them away a harm to the child in itself? is it a harm to the parent?

Is the 'Terrorist' a real threat to the public (despite maybe not having broken a law or having done so but it not being a case winnable in a court of law)?

The government makes greater good calls all the time, not sure it is as clear as we might think when we would alow them to do that and when we would not.

Posted by Genius : 9/01/2006 09:57:00 PM