In reality an impossible aim because the only people who truly know whether the offence has been committed, is the person who committed it and any witnesses who actually saw it being committed. Decisions by magistrates and verdicts from juries are coloured by many many things - not all being relevant to the reality of the situation.
True - but this very frequently results in miscarriages of justice whereby guilty people escape punishment. There is a belief amongs some people that the only 'miscarriages of justice' are those where innocent people are convicted. It is just as much a miscarriage of justice to let a guilty man walk free.
Agreed.
I'm surprised that you appear to disagree with my final sentence. The justice system and rules of evidence have developed over time to create some sort of balance between the desire to detect and punish offenders whilst still providing protection for the innocent. I do believe that this balance can change over time and that, for example, improved education for the mbuttes has reduced the 'vulnerability' of many people whilst also increasing the difficulties for the investigators. This has been recognised in the modification of the right to silence rules. The fact that the prosecution can now comment upon the defendent's refusal to answer questions is, in my view, entirely right and proper. I suggested above that it would not be a good thing if the system becomes seriously biased in favour of suspects, meaning that it would not be a good thing if the system were changed to make it increasingly difficult for the police to obtain evidence. We should have a fair and proper balance - not a system biased one way or the other. Why would you disagree with that notion?
Kev
