To Loudmouth.

The issue I was talking about is that say you're an atheist says absolutely nothing about you except what you aren't. Think of it like this. If a Canadian or an Isrealie, or Norwegean came to you and said that they were Un-Australian. Would you consider that an answer for where they are from, or just a postition of antagonism towards Australia? The truth is that if they aren't a citizen of Australia, or at least from Australia, then they are correct to say that they are unaustealian. But that tells you nothing else about them.

To Banjo Paterson,

The idea of less proof needed would reduce judicial hearings has no logic to it. Making it easier to have a guilty conviction would cause more cases not less. Agai all you would need is an accusation to have a guilty conviction for certian crimes. It's a bad idea. Let it go, move in and look for other solutions.

It's easy to see that none of you understand the nature of religion.

You either belong to the LOUDmouth camp of atheists and agnostics or the OzSpen camp of Christian fundamentalists who only use philosophical debate to convert the atheists and agnostics like LOUDmouth who are only interested in proving that the Christian fundamentalists like OzSpen are off their rocker and around and around and around they go pushing themselves further and further apart.

Good luck boys! I'm having a good laugh at your expense :)

Mispinionated,

Can you read at all ? Do you understand anything about the complexities, overlaps and contradictions between belief and morality ? That an atheist can admire some of the symbolic figures in religious texts, examples of admirable behaviour such as Job, Tamar, Esther and the Good Samaritan without being religious in the slightest ?

Take the time to read people's posts slowly - you never know, you might be able to use some of it in one of your TAFE assignments.

Joe

LOUDmouth,

I appreciate your comments but you can still only tell me what you think you know because you do not have any credentials in what you think you know which is a shame because I still think you would have made a great Arts grad if only you had been able to qualify for entry into the program.

.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

.

You wrote :

« The idea of less proof needed would reduce judicial hearings has no logic to it. Making it easier to have a guilty conviction would cause more cases not less »
.

Placing the plaintiff and the defendant on an equal footing in sex-related criminal trials would deprive the defendant of the quasi-legal immunity he enjoys under the present system.

I expect the initial reaction would be to reboot justice out of its current state of torpor and inefficiency and trigger a major increase in the current ridiculously low conviction rate of just 13%.

The increase should be exponential until it reaches its peaking point before declining back down to a point of equilibrium as the dissuasive factor takes effect (describing what is know in mathematics as a sort of Gaussian curve).

I would expect the conviction rate to stabilise after a period of time to at least 50% after having peaked at something like 80%, which can only be considered a fairly average overall conviction rate for most crimes around the world :

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate

.

.

(Continued …),

.

By the way, Not_Now.Soon, I never suggested that “less proof” was needed – as you mistakenly indicate in your post.

If you care to re-read the precise details of the reform I advocate (cf., my post to you on the bottom of page 21 of this thread) you will see that there are four points as follows :

1. no presumptions regarding innocence or guilt especially in cases involving the most vulnerable amongst us (minors and the mentally and physically handicapped)

2. the right of the accused to remain silent should be abolished

3. the accused should be required to relate his version of events and submit himself to cross-examination by the prosecution

4. consideration of adopting a form of inquisitorial system of justice instead of the present adversarial form of justice in respect of sex-related crimes
.

It is important that the highest level of proof, i.e., “beyond a reasonable doubt” (at least 95% certainty) be maintained, as at present, in respect of sex-related crimes.

Perhaps you will recall that this is consistent with the statement I made in my post to you on page 23 of this thread :

« Naturally, I share your concern about the risk of innocent people being condemned for crimes they did not commit. »

While there are no published statistics on the number of innocent people in jail in Australia, by extrapolation based on the statistics of the UK system (which we have largely inherited), it is estimated to be in the region of 7% of the total jail population.

Whatever it is, I expect it to remain constant. There is no reason why the reforms should have any impact on it, whether positive or negative.

.