Can extrajudicial measures help to ensure that vulnerable people are not, or have not been, unjustly convicted? There ARE extrajudicial measures for young offenders; however, they assume guilt. For some groups (eg.mentally disabled), there are insufficient JUDICIAL measures to ensure that the INNOCENT ARE NOT FOUND GUILTY. See www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/f...
There ARE TRIBUNALS to decide if people qualify for disability pensions. Should tribunals be considered for cases not adequately defined by CRIMINAL law? Should anyone suffer due to a flawed legal system in Canada? Could a tribunal be used to diagnose flaws and lead to new laws? My suggestion: a tribunal serve 1 purpose only 鈥?to intervene for those who may be wrongly convicted 鈥?and would EXCLUDE EXTRAJUDICIAL SANCTIONS. Remember, the courts have become enlightened about other minorities, so my suggestion is not unrealistic. ALTERNATIVES? Would like to here from amyone, but want to know your familiarity with the issue.Do we need a TRIBUNAL to decide criminal cases that are not defined adequately by present laws?
You are touching on an issue ignored by mainstream. Your suggestion is worth pursuing - but keep in mind status quo is difficult to change.
cc
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment