04-14-2008, 02:53 AM
*smacks self on head*
Apparently I wasn't paying attention. I confused "Right to a Fair Trial" with "Fair Criminal Trial", and my above arguments stand against the latter. It seems I didn't read this one yet... taking a look. As for this one...
Most of it seems reasonable, except I really don't like clause 4. I believe this would be the "You have the right to remain silent" idea, but that doesn't really apply in the court. When you are asked a question in court, it should require an answer. I also don't see how this protects from "malicious and unfair" prosecution, and it sets out the right to trial by judge and jury, which, first of all, would apply to any trial (not hearing, admittedly) from petty theft to mass murder. Not the most efficient system. It also doesn't set out what the jury is to do, just that they are to consider the evidence, not pass the verdict.
Still not in favour, as I think a better one could be brought along.
Apparently I wasn't paying attention. I confused "Right to a Fair Trial" with "Fair Criminal Trial", and my above arguments stand against the latter. It seems I didn't read this one yet... taking a look. As for this one...
Most of it seems reasonable, except I really don't like clause 4. I believe this would be the "You have the right to remain silent" idea, but that doesn't really apply in the court. When you are asked a question in court, it should require an answer. I also don't see how this protects from "malicious and unfair" prosecution, and it sets out the right to trial by judge and jury, which, first of all, would apply to any trial (not hearing, admittedly) from petty theft to mass murder. Not the most efficient system. It also doesn't set out what the jury is to do, just that they are to consider the evidence, not pass the verdict.
Still not in favour, as I think a better one could be brought along.