Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am
But what happens if the judge, and/or jury them self, are not just and fair? What happens if a judge, for example, hates wife beaters buts likes husband beaters, or vice-versa? Would they really be applying 'justice and fairness' in all situations?
The public scrutiny of our court system, currently in place, would/could allow us to maintain those principles of fairness and justice.
But where does so called "public scrutiny" come from mostly?
The media mostly presents what sells. They are obviously motivated by money far more than they are by Truth and fairness. Most of the media is governed by the motto, 'Do not let the truth get in the way of a good story'.
Also, the public do not hear the WHOLE story. Listening to and hearing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is meant to be one purpose of courts, judges, and juries. The public usually only hear a tiny fraction of the story, presented by a greedy and money hungry media system.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
It wouldn't be perfect, but wouldn't it be better than what we currently do?
I do not know what your 'we' word here is referring to exactly. I also do not know what 'you'/"we" currently do now. So I cannot answer this.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am
Oh, and by the way, who is 'just' and 'fair' in relation to exactly? A Truly Just and Fair society would not punish anyone. This society would do all it takes to understand why 'what happened' happened, and do all it could to prevent it from ever happening again. But, would not punishing anyone be applying justice and fairness to you, and some others?
Surely when a matter is presented to a court for judgement, the court is required to deliver a verdict that is fair and just
to all?
Have you even contemplated what the chances would be to provide what is 'fair and just'
to all?
I will tell you what the chance would be for a court to provide a 'fair and just'
to all verdict would be that involved any punishment at all. The chance of that would be IMPOSSIBLE.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
Not just to the accused, but to the victim, to other affected citizens, and to society at large. Not punishing anyone would
not deliver justice to the population at large, would it?
YES. If what else I mentioned is done.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
Justice is not
soft-hearted, but
even-handed.
And there is the VERY PROBLEM you are going to have till the day you die.
Others will have a completely different and opposing view of what is actually 'fair and just' from you. So, how could there EVER be a 'fair and just' system
to all with your proposal here?
You
soft-hearted or
even-handed view is such a narrowed-view of things, and that is why you are not seeing how your views here will NEVER EVER be close to being 'fair and just'
to all.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am
I am not sure where you are from but does not the law there give some discretionary power to the judge?
Do not some of the punishments for crimes, written in law, have a recommended minimum sentence and a recommended maximum sentence with discretion given to the judge anywhere in between? Or, are the punishments there already written and fixed?
There is some discretion, of course, but even this does not transform our written-in-advance laws into a system which is fair to all, in all circumstances.
If there was FULL discretion do you have think or believe that that would be 'fair and just'
to all?
Surely EVERY person's own individual views and prejudices would be actual evidence and proof that even with FULL or NO discretion given to punishing judges, then there will NEVER be a chance of a 'fair and just' system
to and for all.
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
In our current system, the only point where the law can be applied justly according to the facts of each particular case is during the court hearing(s). No law can account for all the circumstances under which it might be applied.
So, if there was no written law at all, then what do you propose would a sentencing judge calculate the punishment they give on exactly?
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: ↑May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am
But is this not exactly what happens now, in the country where you are at?
Sometimes, yes. But not always. The laws, as expressed, do not allow it. The laws, as expressed,
prevent justice, in certain cases.
When you say "prevent justice" here, what do you actually mean?
Are the judges not providing the sentences that you find would be 'fair and just'
to you?
Just out of curiosity, are you under some sort of illusion that IF sentences were provided that you found to be "justice", then that would be the same as what is 'fair and just', or "justice",
to all?