The Forum > General Discussion > Laws that seem stupid
Laws that seem stupid
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
- 5
- Page 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
-
- All
The National Forum | Donate | Your Account | On Line Opinion | Forum | Blogs | Polling | About |
![]() |
![]() Syndicate RSS/XML ![]() |
|
About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy |
Next Wednesday will be a test of just how stupid our laws are.
The verdict of George Pell's appeal against conviction will be handed down.
Here we have a situation where one person says certain things happened and another says that did not occur. There has been no supporting evidence for the allegations, yet he was found guilty. It is really stupid that a person can be found guilty on allegations alone.
Apparently the law was changed in recent times to allow this to happen. It used to be that there was no case without supporting evidence or the accused had to be found not guilty. It was up to the accusers to establish proof.
No wonder people have no faith in the law. Another question is why did it take a couple of months to come to a decision after the appeal?
Interesting times next week.