More populist nonsense from my Government
Posted by: Deane F on 16 February 2005
A few years ago a group of prisoners in New Zealand sued the government for torture and inhumane treatment in jail - things like being tied up naked and hosed down or kept in solitary confinement innapropriately. They won their case and were awarded $325,000 to be split between the four of them (from memory).
Since then a few more claims have been won by prisoners for essentially the same thing - a failure in the duty of care toward those imprisoned. Many of the victims of crimes committed by these prisoners find the settlements, even the possibility of settlements, quite offensive and believe that any settlement should bypass the litigant and go directly to the victim/s of the convict.
Now, the Government is proposing legislation that supports this idea and will mean that prisoners who win a suit and receive settlements will not receive the money - being paid, instead, to the victim of the crime for which they are imprisoned.
I think its populist nonsense at best and demogoguery (sic) at worst. Its extremely dangerous for any government to meddle this way in affairs that should be the business of the courts. In this instance the common law should not be replaced by statute because each case is so unique and the flexibility of the common law system allows the courts more freedom to fit a judgment to the facts of the case. Not only that, but the ultimate effect of such legislation will be that prisoners are discouraged by taking the Government to law for breaches of trust and the Corrections department will be less accountable as a result.
Deane
Since then a few more claims have been won by prisoners for essentially the same thing - a failure in the duty of care toward those imprisoned. Many of the victims of crimes committed by these prisoners find the settlements, even the possibility of settlements, quite offensive and believe that any settlement should bypass the litigant and go directly to the victim/s of the convict.
Now, the Government is proposing legislation that supports this idea and will mean that prisoners who win a suit and receive settlements will not receive the money - being paid, instead, to the victim of the crime for which they are imprisoned.
I think its populist nonsense at best and demogoguery (sic) at worst. Its extremely dangerous for any government to meddle this way in affairs that should be the business of the courts. In this instance the common law should not be replaced by statute because each case is so unique and the flexibility of the common law system allows the courts more freedom to fit a judgment to the facts of the case. Not only that, but the ultimate effect of such legislation will be that prisoners are discouraged by taking the Government to law for breaches of trust and the Corrections department will be less accountable as a result.
Deane
It's frightening stuff and makes a mockery of the appeal and compensation systems, long faught for and put in place for a good reason which still applies today. Removing all incentives to attain 'fair play' will ultimately result in more serious 'deep social unrest & crime'. This paying the victims conceopt, was I believed toyed with fairly recently in UK (though on a volutary basis, or give them at least something) which I think is reasonable. Once again our belovwed HM Gutter press is to blame for a lot of the bull by offering large amounts for stories etc, even when they say they don't pay, the original story teller get's something indirectly (otherwise they wouldn't do it). Judges are supposed to be the nearest thing to God in our societies, and Deanne you are right, it's a very dangerous path to follow, paradoxically enough I sincerely believe that a top US Supreme Court Judge with an opinion would not be made to shut up (resign earlyx maybe ?)) but not shut up, whichj is one bonus I suppose, innit.
Fritz Von Never never land
Fritz Von Never never land
Very salient and valid conpemporary points I feel ! Deanne I think knows more than I on the subject (just about most really) of Law and in particular 'Ombudsmen' a strange breed of folk in many Western lands who purport to represent us in many a way, but in reality serve their own interests big style wethger it be banks, mega company's,goverments, etc, please anybody out there site some successful examples of serious results using afore-mentioned parasites ?
Fritz Von They might as well nor be there really
Fritz Von They might as well nor be there really
Good moaning Deanne, I assume you're just having brekkies ? Yes, that was exactly what I thought !
Fritz Von It's -12°C at the moment here so some warm legal stuff is just the ticket, innit mate.
Fritz Von It's -12°C at the moment here so some warm legal stuff is just the ticket, innit mate.
Thanks for that, but my point is (also there) do they get results ??? The average Joe in the street needs to be confident in fairness, and it must be seen to be done, and this old falacy of perfect justice cricket style has long unfortunately been thrown to the winds over and above fantasy land in my opinion (lay, as it is).
With respect to the SC Judges, I know they're politically appointed (but by bi-partisan groups I believe ?)my first point being that I do still think after all the flack I, & others give the Yanks on occassion, one of them can still contradict the President BIGSTYLE without fear, unlike in our set ups.
Fritz Von I feel Hilary C will soon be one too, but pleaae don't tell anybody it's a secret, watch yer ass Condi
With respect to the SC Judges, I know they're politically appointed (but by bi-partisan groups I believe ?)my first point being that I do still think after all the flack I, & others give the Yanks on occassion, one of them can still contradict the President BIGSTYLE without fear, unlike in our set ups.
Fritz Von I feel Hilary C will soon be one too, but pleaae don't tell anybody it's a secret, watch yer ass Condi