I think that’s fine, as is the court of law not court of justice line, in context. The court should be focused on the law and process to ensure that it is as fair and objective as possible. However perfect fairness and objectivity is not realistically possible. Where justice comes in is the jury room, and that’s why juries should be free to find whatever outcome they choose, as the representatives of the sovereign citizenry.
So if someone is convicted of a crime in a perfectly fair and objective process and we later find conclusive and indisputable evidence that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and entirely innocent it’s perfectly acceptable that they be forced to serve their sentence? Including a death sentence? It’s perfectly acceptable that they have no right to appeal their conviction or sentence on a showing of actual innocence?
I think that’s very easy for some people to hand wave away as just “a cost of doing business” in a system of justice but is shockingly and appallingly costly for the people who are unfairly burdened with shouldering that “cost” for the rest of us.
My apologies, I didn’t make myself clear at all. I was commenting on the judges explanation of his legal powers and responsibilities. There should always be avenues of appeal available. The design of the system isn’t for judges to decide though, that belongs to legislators.
There’s a flaw in the system there, but not with the judge. He’s just explaining his duties according to the law. If you want the law changed, reasonably I think in this case, that’s a political matter not a judicial one.
