News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

France - Criminalizes Nagging?

Started by Malthus, January 07, 2010, 10:25:29 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Martinus

#30
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 07, 2010, 06:31:21 PM
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.

This is a false premise. Most countries which have professional judges have extensive measures put in place that ensure the executive has little to none influence on the judges. In fact, a judge in Poland (who, for example, is irremovable by anyone but the tribunal of his own peers, and enjoys immunity like a MP) is probably less liable to political pressure than a judge in the US.

The Minsky Moment

Quote from: Martinus on January 08, 2010, 09:53:45 AM
This is a false premise. Most countries which have professional judges have extensive measures put in place that ensure the executive has little to none influence on the judges. In fact, a judge in Poland (who, for example, is irremovable by anyone but the tribunal of his own peers, and enjoys immunity like a MP) is probably less liable to political pressure than a judge in the US.

The mere existence of "measures put in place" does not in fact necessarily "ensure" lack of influence.  For example, take the following constitutional structure:

QuoteArticle 120.
Judges shall be independent and shall obey only the Constitution of the Russian Federation and the federal law.
A court of law, having established the illegality of an act of government or any other body, shall pass a ruling in accordance with law.

Article 121.
Judges may not be replaced.
A judge may not have his powers terminated or suspended except under procedures and on grounds established by federal law.

Article 122.
Judges shall possess immunity.
Criminal proceedings may not be brought against a judge except as provided for by federal law.

Article 124.
Law courts shall be financed only out of the federal budget and financing shall ensure full and independent administration of justice in accordance with federal law.

This is a good example of the kind of structures put in place, supposedly to ensure judicial independence, along the lines of the Polish example you mention.

These excerpts happen to be taken verbatim from the federal Constitution of  . . . Russia.   :ph34r:
The purpose of studying economics is not to acquire a set of ready-made answers to economic questions, but to learn how to avoid being deceived by economists.
--Joan Robinson

Barrister

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on January 08, 2010, 09:46:15 AM
Quote from: Barrister on January 07, 2010, 06:55:26 PM
I can only say that I have a slight preference of judge alone trials.

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

Well not "also", but I (unlike a judge) very clearly am a state official.
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Jaron

Once America set its naggers free society went down the toilet.
Winner of THE grumbler point.