Juries 'should hear phone taps' to nail crime gangs

[David Hansen]

On 12 Sep 2002 at 13:19, David Swarbrick wrote:

> In court it is very different, and it is a proper duty of the
> court system to require what look like arbitrary standards to ensure
> that only the guilty are punished.  

I suspect that the courts, like any other organisation, are unable to 
ensure anything, with two exceptions that have little to do with the 
courts (though they are involved in death and taxes from time to 
time).

Other than these two exceptions I suggest that the courts can aspire, 
try and hope to see that only the guilty are punished. However they 
cannot ensure that, as we know from the balls ups that have been 
identified. They are unlikely to be the only ones.

I'm begining to sound like a lawyer, so I'll leave this:-)
 
> Nowadays, almost any evidence is put before a court or a
> jury, and the judge then protects the defendant by describing to the
> jury how dangerous it might be to rely upon the evidence.

Surely you mean "protects" rather than protects.

> Unfortunately existing protections do not work, as can easily be seen
> by the constant dribble of miscarriages of justice.

Yet the smug people who apologise for the "system" tell us that this 
was all in the past and things are now different. They even do this 
while restricting the access of the defence to all the information 
the government has (an access that was brought in following a number 
of balls ups, "not to be shown to the defence" being a famous 
phrase).

> If he cannot, or will not, then I
> do not think he should be allowed to use it. If he can then I do not
> think there should be a huge problem.

You have put it very well and changed my mind a bit. I will store 
this phrase.


--
  David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E
 I will *always* explain why I revoke a key, unless the UK 
 government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.