andrewducker: (Default)
andrewducker ([personal profile] andrewducker) wrote2011-11-18 11:00 am

Interesting Links for 18-11-2011

[identity profile] artkouros.livejournal.com 2011-11-18 12:18 pm (UTC)(link)
I read "cannabis" as "cannibals". That would be interesting.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2011-11-18 03:07 pm (UTC)(link)
I think that probabably the biggest single thing we could do to improve the peace, prosperity, freedom and security of people on our planet is to legalise drugs.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2011-11-18 03:10 pm (UTC)(link)
I'm uncomfortable about the removal of the requirement for corroboration.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2011-11-21 10:24 am (UTC)(link)
Partly it’s a result of brainwashing and partly the result of becoming comfortable with the status quo.

The “real” bit of discomfort comes from this. Where there is a choice between making things easier or harder for the state to convict people of a crime I tend to prefer that it is more difficult. I think there is a reduced risk of abuse of the criminal system where some corroboration is required. By abuse I mean the (very rare in our country) systematic use of the criminal justice system to quash political dissent and the (more common) circumvention of the system by the police or witnesses.

I’m sceptical of any desire on the part of the state to make it easier to lock people up. If there are problems convicting guilty people of crimes (and I accept that there are problems for a number of classes of crime) I’d like to see the state’s first response to be improving the gathering, storage, interrogation and presentation of evidence rather than reducing the evidential bar.

I accept that there are guilty people who will not be convicted as a result of the rules on corroboration and that some of these people will have committed very bad crimes. I think the situation where we have no rules on corroboration is that slightly more innocent people will be fitted up. On balance I’d rather the guilty went free rather than the innocent went to prison and we had a system that was marginally less able to be used for state (or corporate) oppression.

Corroboration takes a situation where it is one person’s word against another and gives an extra piece of data which the jury can use to validate one of two contradictory statements.

Without corroboration one can be convicted purely on the grounds of a confession or purely on the grounds of a single eye witness – both of these methods have significant known flaws.

The standard for corroboration is pretty low. IIRC it can be something as someone looking a little shaky after an alleged assault.
fearmeforiampink: (assasins have failed)

[personal profile] fearmeforiampink 2011-11-19 06:14 pm (UTC)(link)
See, I can see some stuff retaining the need for corroboration. But (from a brief look into it) it seems like some stuff that'd be conclusive (off the top of my head example; CCTV with a clear view of the person's face) wouldn't be enough on its own to convict someone.

[identity profile] danieldwilliam.livejournal.com 2011-11-21 10:29 am (UTC)(link)
See also my comments in reply to AD.

There are bound to be cases where one piece of evidence is in fact going to be sufficient but even CCTV with a clear view of someone’s face can be faked. The standard for corroboration is pretty low but I’d like some second piece of evidence so that there isn’t a single point of failure in the system.

The point of corroboration is to make it harder for the state or for a conspiracy of witnesses to gain a conviction by presenting false evidence.

[identity profile] philmophlegm.livejournal.com 2011-11-18 04:56 pm (UTC)(link)
The Gamburtsevs are pretty much where Lovecraft placed the Miskatonic Mountains in 'At the Mountains of Madness'.

Minimum wage laws?

[identity profile] 0olong.livejournal.com 2011-11-19 09:49 am (UTC)(link)
I don't think you need to worry about minimum wage unless you're paying something.
fearmeforiampink: (Do not fall in love)

Re: Minimum wage laws?

[personal profile] fearmeforiampink 2011-11-19 06:17 pm (UTC)(link)
Also, it's a program designed to help get them into work that they need to do to show they're jobseeking, and thus should get jobseeker's allowance.

I'd have much less problem with it if it was something that was offered with no compulsion, no consequences of not doing it.