o sung wu,

I understand what you wrote.
My point is that the constitution did not allow for the govt or the judiciary to randomly and without constitutional approval by the people, to change it's rules or messages.
The constitution is not a document or a doctrine open to mis-interpretation.
It is clear and concise, with explanatory preface so as to clarify and ensure it is NOT mis-intererpreted.
So I hope you can see my disgust and anger at the govt and judiciary, for taking matters into their own hands, by contravening the constitution without following due process, (ie; having a referendum on the matter of removing the jury in all matters concerning court sittings), probably semantics, to get their own way, as usual.
I have not found any references to the removal of a jury, only to be replaced by a "single" person who, he alone sits in "judgement" over another person, in complete violation and in a concerted and eggregious rejection of the constitution and what it stands for.
In short, our forefathers were a much more mature and responsible lot, compared to this rabble of camel dung we have running things today, and I mean from the top.
You can't have incompetence at one level without it being at all levels, or things just don't work well together.
So not only is the govt incompetent, the judiciary and theefore by extension, the law enforcement as well.
So let's start at the top and start knocking these arrogant smart arses off their self imposed positions of criminally driven, self ingratiating, mindsets and thrones.

Tony Abbott was a Rhodes scholar. How do your qualifications compare to that Mr Opinion? Just wondering?

.

Dear o sung wu,

.

Many thanks for refreshing my memory of the case of the dingo abduction of the baby at Uluru and the case of the serial killer, Archie Beattie McCafferty. I must confess I had never plunged into all the gory details of the life of the latter. As you say, it is most instructive.

The former case is a regrettable example of the shortcomings of certain crime investigations, interrogations, gathering, analysing and interpreting scientific and forensic evidence etc. The latter case leaves me with the same terrible feeling of injustice that I felt when I learned that Charles Manson will be up for parole in 2027, at the age of 92, despite all the previous false announcements.

McCafferty was up for parole and released from prison at the age of 48 (he was born in 1950) and deported back to Scotland in 1998. He now goes by the name of James Lok and has been living in Scotland for the past 21 years, apparently in good health. As time has proven, he was not as insane as he, himself, and the three court-appointed psychiatric experts declared him to be.

This is typically a case where there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that the convicted person committed the atrocious crimes of which he was accused (in this case, four cold-blooded murders) and therefore, no risk of wrongful conviction.

It is precisely in cases like this that I consider that the appropriate response of a fair, just and democratic society is to acknowledge that, by his heinous crimes, the perpetrator has forfeited his right to life and euthanise him as painlessly, peacefully and humanely as modern science will allow.

However, it is up to the judge and the judge alone, not the jury (or anybody else, for that matter) to fix the sentence. It is the judge’s prerogative to determine if each individual case merits euthanasia or life imprisonment.

Unfortunately, not all cases are as clear-cut as the McCafferty case – but, perhaps you will agree, many others are.

.

.

Hi runner !

.

On the Rhodes again … homeward bound ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gdlyi5mckg0

.

O Sung Wu,

You (and the rest of us) will be happy to know that Manson died a couple of years ago. So no release, except to the worms.

Cheers,

Joe

Good morning to you ALTRAV...

I do understand the general thrust of your argument, and at some level, I do agree with you. The construct of our Constitution and most of our Legal system was based on the existing jurisprudence as practiced in Great Britain. A system that has worked very well for us ever since Federation. Is it perfect, or foolproof, of course not. There's nothing in the law that is. However, it's the best we've got, and a hell of a lot better than say, the French system of Criminal Law, where the burden of proof lays with the accused.

Your assertion(s) that our entire judicial system is incompetent, well, in some measure it's partly true I guess. I can only comment on the activities of the NSWPOL, and sure we've (they've) made mistakes in the past and will continue to do so in the future. Police investigators are not infallible, far from it. However they do their best, and after all, they and their families, also have some 'skin in the game'. Finally, your comments that many who hold judicial office are 'smart arses', in part could be true. However in my experience, many are (unequivocally) not. Thanks ALTRAV.