The lecture I went to last night I found particularly interesting, so I thought I would share some of what was said that really peeked my interest. One of the things that was talked about was the paradox of Criminal Court. As the crimes of the defence become more heinous, the more protection he/she is provided by the courts. That being said, the courts are actually more on the side of the defence than on the side of the prosecution. The reason being that, the courts would rather set a guilty man free, then send an innocent man to jail.
Now I know that the courts are supposed to be impartial, and that they are not on the side of either, but rather and unbiased judge of the case, but when you look at due process, and all that is involved in a criminal case in order to get a conviction, all the “hoops” the prosecution have to jump through, per se, it becomes clear where the courts protection lies. I understand this, and appreciate these barriers that have been put up to ensure that an innocent man is not sent to prison. But it does raise questions about who is protecting or standing up for the victims of the crimes? We had some interesting debate, and it left me feeling like I need to find out more. As I am still in first year law, we will not be going into great detail about criminal courts and the burden of evidence, this will be later on in my degree, but it has left me wanting more. Which is exactly why I signed up for this degree, I absolutely love having these debates, and thinking about things outside of everyday life, and looking forward to the next lecture!
As always, comments welcome. Till next time.