GUILTY OR INNOCENT
They do not care!
"Utilitarianism uses the criminal as a means to satisfy social purposes and not primarily as a person who has an intrinsic worth in himself or herself. The person to be punished does NOT NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE GUILTY so long as he or she can be used as an example." So said a prison chaplain recently within a series of articles on the theory of punishment. Although this quote is out of context the good man really did hit the nail on the head. People are not born to automatically obey, they are trained to obey - and this is how.
The aim is that someone must always be seen to pay whether a crime has taken place
or only might have taken place.
To bring this about British justice is not a search
for the truth, it is a game to get 10 amateurs to say the word guilty. Proof of this
was an interview on TV after the recent conviction of Barry George. A senior person
for the prosecution was interviewed and asked whether she could categorically say,
100%, that he was guilty. she replied: “That is not the test we apply, the test is
whether we have enough to put it in front of a jury.” So proving they have no interest
in guilt or innocence just in getting a result, if there is more than a 50% chance,
that will do.
Here is a quote from the judgment in the case of Hickey & Ors. C.A,
30/9/97: “This court is not concerned with the guilt or innocence of the appellants,
but only with the safety of their convictions. This at first may seem an unsatisfactory
state of affairs, until it is remembered that the integrity of the criminal process
is the most important consideration for courts which have to hear appeals against
conviction. Both the innocent and guilty are entitled to fair trials. If the trial
process is not fair, if it is distorted by deceit or by material breaches of the
rules of evidence or procedure, then the liberty of all is threatened. This court
is a court of review. The court reviews the trial process to equip itself to answer
the question do we think the conviction appealed is safe or unsafe? The court is
not a court of trial or retrial. Persons accused of serious crimes are tried by juries
in the Crown Court”.
It is obvious here that the judges by 'safety of convictions'
and 'fair trials' are referring to their own rules being kept - the integrity of
their process. As they point out they are not interested in guilt or innocence. Back
in 1986 the late Lord Denning said: “Maybe it is better that people serve life sentences
than the law is impugned” This really is the attitude of British judges and prosecutors.
Another
quote of interest is by members of the European Court of Human Rights in Edwards
v The UK. A minority of six members of the Commission dissented from the majority
of eight that there had been no violation of Article 6 on the following grounds:
“We are particularly struck by the conclusion of the [British] Court of Appeal concerning
the most important part of the withheld evidence that the jury would have not been
influenced to act other than they did if they had had the full story. We appreciate
that the jury system is widely considered in the United Kingdom to be essential to
ensure the fairness of the criminal justice system. However there is no way of knowing
what elements of a case influence a jury’s decision as it gives no reason for its
findings...” Precisely. At least some Europeans can see one major problem with the
British system.
Another example of how bent British Justice is, is the case of the
men that were called the M25 gang, their convictions were quashed after the European
Court of Human Rights ruled that they had not had a fair trial because evidence had
been withheld from the defence. The appeal judge on announcing the verdict, said
in an act of pique that "this does not prove that they are innocent." So are we to
deduce from this that British Appeal Court judges release men who are robbers and
murderers? If they really believed the men to still be guilty then why did they not
order a re-trial? Is this because the shenanigans used to fit-up these men would
then have been brought out in the open for us all to see and the innocence of the
men proved? Is that what these judges were frightened of, revealing the truth and
their attitude?
The excuse given by judges and prosecutors and other lovers of the
present British judicial system is that juries decide guilt or innocence in Britain.
Well we do not know if the amateurs used in a trial were capable of doing the job,
understood the evidence, were full of prejudice, or what they knew of the case prior
to the trial. The present jury system is a complete lottery.
Jurors should do the
job properly and as individuals each produce a report in writing. At the end of the
trial they should be given a list of everyone that gave evidence and also a list
of exhibits. They should then identify from their own notes who the people listed
are, why they were called to give evidence and what they said that favoured the prosecution
and the defence, they should also identify the significance of each exhibit. Then,
they should come to a decision and write a paragraph to justify this. Jurors really
should take responsibility for their own decision.
That way we would really know if
the job had been done correctly, instead of the theatrical game designed by upper
class characters who dress up in period costume and pretend to know what the word
justice means. (Do you not think it odd that these people get paid so much and yet
any 10 from 12 jurors end up deciding the verdict - and in secret?)
The people responsible
for the British justice system are not interested in accuracy just in making an example
of someone. As the good vicar I quoted at the start of this article went on to say:
“This idea of vicarious punishment [utilitarianism] was put forward by John Ruskin
[1819-1900, author, art critic, social philosopher] who suggested in the case of
a murder an inhabitant of the area should be chosen by lot and hanged so as to encourage
the whole community to keep the peace.”
Well, we do not hang people anymore in Britain,
instead we give them mandatory life sentences. Guilty or innocent it has the same
affect on the rest of us and that is what British justice is really all about.
(Posted August 2001, ammended Mon, Sep 30, 2002 )
www.slimeylimeyjustice.org