McLaren_Field wrote:The judge must be believed because thats all we have, he/she has heard all of the evidence, will certainly have years worth of experience in the law (decades worth probably), and is appointed as worthy to judge such things.
And yet another, equally experienced judge may have reached a different conclusion. "Kill the white bitch", or whatever it was, does tend to make you think there are at least some grounds to question his decision, though I accept that one would only be able to do so when in possession of all the facts relating to the case (which we are unlikely to get from The Telegraph).
McLaren_Field wrote:If he/she has made a mistake then there is also a procedure to re-judge what he/she has done or said and reach the same, or a different conclusion, nothing that they state is set in stone - its the system that we have and generally speaking its a bloody good one.
Well, quite. That's kinda my point - if we just accepted that judges
must be believed, no appeal would ever be brought.
McLaren_Field wrote:I certainly wouldn't hand over the justice system to newspaper editors.
I certainly don't think anyone has ever suggested such a thing.
