France - Criminalizes Nagging?

[The Minsky Moment]

So, what we have here is a law impossible to enforce that will have no effect. What's not to like?

But it even better than that -- because it is not really impossible to enforce; rather, it is perfecly designed for selective and ad hoc enforcement according to prosecutorial discretion.

[DisturbedPervert]

Criminalize nagging?  I don't think jailing a country's entire female population is the answer.

[MadImmortalMan]

It is a typical telegraph's "those stupid French" article. 

When I saw the thread title, my thought was "Way to go France!". 

[Iormlund]

I'd be very surprised if we don't have this kind of law as well.

[Barrister]

Furthermore, compared to the US system, the guilt in criminal cases is decided by professional judges rather than juries (which makes "emotional" convictions less likely and limits the impact of a lawyer's rhetorics) . . .

Your faith in the supreme rationality and fair-mindedness of state judicial functionaries would be touching if I had a more authoritarian streak of mind.  Alas, I am more inclined to think of the Star Chamber as a cheesy 80s films rather than a historical ideal to be pursued.

Having appeared in front of both juries and 'professional judges', I do have a preference for judges, although Marty's complaints against juries are (as to be expected) wildly overblown.

What is less expected is Minksy's wildly overblown rhetoric against professional judges, comparing them to the Court of Star Chamber (meowtf?).

[The Minsky Moment]

Star Chamber was in place for centuries and for a long time was admired by many for its efficiency and professionalism.  Its only drawback was the *potential* for abuse by a unscrupulous government - a potential that was realized under the Stuarts.  That potential is inherent in any system of criminal justice that gives authority over the freedom of the populace to state officials, rather than peer juries.

[Sheilbh]

Star Chamber was in place for centuries and for a long time was admired by many for its efficiency and professionalism.  Its only drawback was the *potential* for abuse by a unscrupulous government - a potential that was realized under the Stuarts.  That potential is inherent in any system of criminal justice that gives authority over the freedom of the populace to state officials, rather than peer juries.

Don't forget the Tudors.  Thomas Cromwell loved the Star Chamber.

Incidentally everyone should read Wolf Hall

[Barrister]

Star Chamber was in place for centuries and for a long time was admired by many for its efficiency and professionalism.  Its only drawback was the *potential* for abuse by a unscrupulous government - a potential that was realized under the Stuarts.  That potential is inherent in any system of criminal justice that gives authority over the freedom of the populace to state officials, rather than peer juries.

Hence the importance in our system of judicial independence.  Judges are not "state officials". 

[The Minsky Moment]

Incidentally everyone should read Wolf Hall

Just finished it, good but not great.

Strange to stop in 1536.

[Ed Anger]

I liked the movie.

[The Minsky Moment]

Judges are not "state officials".

[Barrister]

Judges are not "state officials".

Because for the time being I'm only posting wiki links...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_independence

[The Minsky Moment]

Judicial independence doesn't mean that judges aren't officials of the state.  Judicial indepence is just a set of rules and practices that insulate one set of state officials (judges) from direct coercion by another set.  But it doesn't prevent various methods of informal suasion, it doesn't prevent a commonality of interest arising from similar roles as functionaries of the state or similar backgrounds in terms of education and formation, and it doesn't even necessarily prevent against majoritarian tyranny (assuming the majority has the power of judicial appointment).

Ultimately, the jury system is a critical firebreak against the abuse of state power.  It is possible for a criminal justice system to dispense with it without falling into terrible abuses, but it does remove an important and valuable check.

[Barrister]

Judicial independence doesn't mean that judges aren't officials of the state.  Judicial indepence is just a set of rules and practices that insulate one set of state officials (judges) from direct coercion by another set.  But it doesn't prevent various methods of informal suasion, it doesn't prevent a commonality of interest arising from similar roles as functionaries of the state or similar backgrounds in terms of education and formation, and it doesn't even necessarily prevent against majoritarian tyranny (assuming the majority has the power of judicial appointment).

Ultimately of course this is a question of definition.  And if you define the term "state offficial" widely enough yes you can catch a judge in that definition.  Perhaps the better term is "government official", as a judge is never seen to be an agent of the government.  They are independent.  They are the judiciary, it's own unique function.

Ultimately, the jury system is a critical firebreak against the abuse of state power.  It is possible for a criminal justice system to dispense with it without falling into terrible abuses, but it does remove an important and valuable check.

That strikes me as a stament of belief, not a statement of fact.  This country of course has criminal jury trials, but I suspect there we be little difference in outcomes if they were abolished.  Again, having conducted trials in both forms, I can only say that I have a slight preference of judge alone trials.

[The Minsky Moment]

I can only say that I have a slight preference of judge alone trials.

Of course you do - you are also a state official.