"Just on that issue of hearsay I think the general drift in both the US and Oz is that exceptions to the Hearsay Rules will be more readily found where the criminality involved is of a minor nature such as where hoons perform burnouts etc not where serious criminal acts are involved such as terrorist acts etc." cray
Well ya see, thats exactly what I was talking about when it comes to how we would do in a fully structured and traditional court process.
To me the more serious nature of the offense would suggest that - from the victims perspective as opposed to the criminals perspective - there is a far more compelling reason to include it rahter than exclude it.
Sure...again from the criminals perspective...anything that you can exclude from the process makes his adjudgement of guilt that much harder.
I think many are getting well and truly jacked off with the way the system is tweaked in order to protect the rights of the crim.
I've long advocated we change the name from the "the criminal justice system" to a "victim justice system".
And again...young Davey wasnt a US citizen and hence wasnt protected by the constitution and that he wasnt on the continental US - want subjected to the gigantic loophole that is the US legal system.
For me the last place I'd want a terrorist tried is in the US (or most other western democracies). Imagine trying to gain a conviction on overseas offenses committed by terrorists or AQ operatives and the defecne would demand DNA proof, and corroborative evidence and employ all the rest of the tricks of the trade???
No...G worked fine.
BTW...I keep getting asked by a poster what crime did DH commit.
I ask this just out of interest...say an Aussie overseas is caught, tried and found guilty of a truly heinous crime - say serial murders.
Lets say he escapes from custody and manages to get his way back to OZ. And lets assume there is no extradition treaty with that country. And lets say Interpol et al have no jurisdiction.
Would you happily allow this guy to wander the streets here in Oz??
