Thursday, February 4, 2010
Updates
Hi guys, the updates that I mentioned from my previous post, do not worry, I'm still awaiting the respond from some reliable sources so that I can feed you guys back. So stay tuneD!
Children's Court
In Malaysia, we have an hierarchy of courts with different courts serving different purposes before going to the serious one on the top. One of the court that we have is Court for Children. It does not mean that children are running the lawyers and the judge, but logically, the court for children that did some crime.
The reason behind why we are using a children court is that, children are naive, immature and definitely wouldn't know much of the effect of what they have done, even in their adolescent. Thus, the Court for Children are for children below the age of 18. In the range of age below 18, children that commit crimes are given a chance that they might be a future leader, breaking from their past as it may not be their intention.
In the case that involved that was discussed in class is that a boy age of 12, had murdered the daughter of his teacher who is aged 11. The boy was found guilty after stabbing the girl 20 times with a sharp objects and slashing her 4 times. However, he was not sentenced to death. Alright, boo whatever you want and cursed whatever you want. As mentioned, this is not unfair, this is due to they may not know the consequences. Just like now, back when you are just 12 years old, will you know that making love with a girl, although you all are playing, and yet you did an intercourse with her (with her unwilling), is a rape? If you would have know that, do you wish to be granted the chance. Definitely yes, in fact, a life is definitely worth it, and you might think you can sacrifice your production and to continue living.
Back to the topic, it is consider unconstitutional law as it is different from the constitution. After much process, with court of appeal (before is the high court) until it reaches APEX or Federal Court. With the King's pleasure, the kid will be located somewhere, which we usually know is rehabiliation centre like St. Henry Gurney and etc. And we shall pray hard for their improvement in life. Probably you guys can blame the technology and the power of gaming, that caused this effect.
Back to the normal speculation process, so let's bring up a case. As we all know, celebrities are always blame of doing something they didn't do. In fact, toward man to man, they are never afraid. After all, making some payments and etc., or in fact, a good lawyer can give you a win. But when it comes to involving kids, "BOY, YOU ARE GONE!". Yes, yes, let's talk about Michael Jackson. The reason why I brought this things up, it may sound not related but I will let you know my point. Since after his death, the Legendary Pop singer who was accused and found guilty of child molestation, not one but a few. At the end of the day, those who said they are molested came upfront and admitted that, NO, MY DAD FORCED ME TO SAY, HE DIDN'T MOLEST ME.
So the point is like this, I'm a Junior to one guy called A. I'm his beloved son and one day, A was unhappy and having dispute with B. I also know B well, in fact he is like an uncle to me. Thus, A planned out a plot that involves me killing B unintentionally (add: with A not present). By the time B was found dead, with only me on the scene, I'm the only one convicted. With me, saying I don't know what happen and at the end of the day, I was found guilty and send for rehabiliation.
So does it mean that other than me, the other suspect like A who acted don't know, with all the blames on me escaping without having fur laying on his guilty hand?
The reason behind why we are using a children court is that, children are naive, immature and definitely wouldn't know much of the effect of what they have done, even in their adolescent. Thus, the Court for Children are for children below the age of 18. In the range of age below 18, children that commit crimes are given a chance that they might be a future leader, breaking from their past as it may not be their intention.
In the case that involved that was discussed in class is that a boy age of 12, had murdered the daughter of his teacher who is aged 11. The boy was found guilty after stabbing the girl 20 times with a sharp objects and slashing her 4 times. However, he was not sentenced to death. Alright, boo whatever you want and cursed whatever you want. As mentioned, this is not unfair, this is due to they may not know the consequences. Just like now, back when you are just 12 years old, will you know that making love with a girl, although you all are playing, and yet you did an intercourse with her (with her unwilling), is a rape? If you would have know that, do you wish to be granted the chance. Definitely yes, in fact, a life is definitely worth it, and you might think you can sacrifice your production and to continue living.
Back to the topic, it is consider unconstitutional law as it is different from the constitution. After much process, with court of appeal (before is the high court) until it reaches APEX or Federal Court. With the King's pleasure, the kid will be located somewhere, which we usually know is rehabiliation centre like St. Henry Gurney and etc. And we shall pray hard for their improvement in life. Probably you guys can blame the technology and the power of gaming, that caused this effect.
Back to the normal speculation process, so let's bring up a case. As we all know, celebrities are always blame of doing something they didn't do. In fact, toward man to man, they are never afraid. After all, making some payments and etc., or in fact, a good lawyer can give you a win. But when it comes to involving kids, "BOY, YOU ARE GONE!". Yes, yes, let's talk about Michael Jackson. The reason why I brought this things up, it may sound not related but I will let you know my point. Since after his death, the Legendary Pop singer who was accused and found guilty of child molestation, not one but a few. At the end of the day, those who said they are molested came upfront and admitted that, NO, MY DAD FORCED ME TO SAY, HE DIDN'T MOLEST ME.
So the point is like this, I'm a Junior to one guy called A. I'm his beloved son and one day, A was unhappy and having dispute with B. I also know B well, in fact he is like an uncle to me. Thus, A planned out a plot that involves me killing B unintentionally (add: with A not present). By the time B was found dead, with only me on the scene, I'm the only one convicted. With me, saying I don't know what happen and at the end of the day, I was found guilty and send for rehabiliation.
So does it mean that other than me, the other suspect like A who acted don't know, with all the blames on me escaping without having fur laying on his guilty hand?
Doctrine of Stare Decisis
The Doctrine of Stare Decisis is perhaps one of the most important studies in the field of law that was practise ever since from 1820s in the Supreme Court of England. In fact, from our lecturer, this is one of the most interesting area that cramps all the law students very much.
Adapted from Wikipedia,
And probably Stare Decisis is the one that makes law really hard, as they truly need to memorize and research a lot whenever they are going for a legal suit. And probably this makes two statements fairly accurate.
One will be by George Santayana, "Those who don't remember their history, are condemned to repeat the same mistake again".
Second, "The more research, just like any fields that you made, the more meticulous and trustable your information are".
Back to the topic, although Stare Decisis may meant that way, it is not as easy as is seem. Learning from my lecturer and also my law friends, not all the cases are the same and they varies, due to generation differences, technology and lots of evolvement. Thus, a lot of justification must be made as similar as possible to the case that is brought forward. But truly, it is not that easy, not just in pointing out the similarity, but to convince people that every information delivered makes hell of a sense.
So from there, we can see two things, the normal two things of advantages and disadvantages. The questioned that was brought up to me, that leaves me mumble something that I understand myself. From the positive point of view, it brings efficiency. Simply, you do not have to waste your time doing the same thing that was done earlier. In another word, REFERENCING. Apart from that will be the stability in law, that through either cultivation or cases from centuries ago, people know what is allowable and what is not. From the sources of Wiki Answers, "...to promote a uniformity of law throughout the country. Different states are free to disagree among themselves as to what laws govern in their states, but since most court made law comes from common law England, many legal principles have the same roots. Courts of different states do try to make rulings in line with other states even though they do not have to."
Although uniformity of law may be seem as both positive and negative. The negative sidepoint will be that uniformity shows that everything that happen will be the same, and there are no OTHERWISE! To rule autocratically is good, but democratically, it may seem absurb. Also, the expectability of the results may seem quite the same. Let's say there are so many cases of raping in Malaysia, and most of them will likely to get the same punishment, and out of probably thousand, only one exceptional case may happen. This simply leads to the restrictions of Judge to command and to open up to new debate. Why? Because let's say, if horizontally, most people will accept the results, but vertically, everyone might be thinking that, is that Judge trying to outrun the law of the Supreme Court, or getting some flashlight for himself. Thus this is not developing the study of law. And as time goes by, back to the 1800, the mentality of people are much different, with humans nowadays slightly more fabricated.
Thus, from that as usual, let's speculate some real case that is happening, in fact TODAY! Back in 1998, one of the Malaysia's most bizarre political scandal that involve the Deputy Prime Minister, accused and found guilty of sodomising a guy. Ten years later, after he was released from the prison of his act in 2004, he is once again being accused in the same story, with his personal assistant as well. For many of us, who knew the true story behind the court, many of us have regretted that incident, simply the media is making a truly bad name of the accused. However, this time, media are so broad and many are well informed that 1998 case may have some slippage of information. But decision have be made, so in 2010, with February 3rd the first day where their case begin, does it mean, it will be using Stare Decisis again?
Adapted from Wikipedia,
In fact, this Doctrine as mentioned by my lecturer is that, most British colonised country will probably practise this doctrine. The easier understanding of this doctrine is that, "judges are bound to follow the decision made by other judges before them in dealing with cases with similar facts, whether is horizontally or vertically". Horizontally applies whereby the decision is bounded by earlier judges with the same level as the one using it. Vertically is like a superior to subordinate, whereby the one practising now is folowing the decision from a higher court or superior court.Stare decisis (Latin: [ˈstaːre deːˈkiːsiːs], Anglicisation: [ˈsteɹɪ diˈsaɪsɪs]) is the legal principle by which judges are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. The words originate from the Latin phrase Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established".
In the United States, which uses a common law system in its federal courts and most of its state courts, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has stated:
Stare decisis is the policy of the court to stand by precedent; the term is but an abbreviation of stare decisis et quieta non movere — "to stand by and adhere to decisions and not disturb what is settled." Consider the word "decisis." The word means, literally and legally, the decision. Nor is the doctrine stare dictis; it is not "to stand by or keep to what was said." Nor is the doctrine stare rationibus decidendi — "to keep to the rationes decidendi of past cases." Rather, under the doctrine of stare decisis a case is important only for what it decides — for the "what," not for the "why," and not for the "how." Insofar as precedent is concerned, stare decisis is important only for the decision, for the detailed legal consequence following a detailed set of facts.
And probably Stare Decisis is the one that makes law really hard, as they truly need to memorize and research a lot whenever they are going for a legal suit. And probably this makes two statements fairly accurate.
One will be by George Santayana, "Those who don't remember their history, are condemned to repeat the same mistake again".
Second, "The more research, just like any fields that you made, the more meticulous and trustable your information are".
Back to the topic, although Stare Decisis may meant that way, it is not as easy as is seem. Learning from my lecturer and also my law friends, not all the cases are the same and they varies, due to generation differences, technology and lots of evolvement. Thus, a lot of justification must be made as similar as possible to the case that is brought forward. But truly, it is not that easy, not just in pointing out the similarity, but to convince people that every information delivered makes hell of a sense.
So from there, we can see two things, the normal two things of advantages and disadvantages. The questioned that was brought up to me, that leaves me mumble something that I understand myself. From the positive point of view, it brings efficiency. Simply, you do not have to waste your time doing the same thing that was done earlier. In another word, REFERENCING. Apart from that will be the stability in law, that through either cultivation or cases from centuries ago, people know what is allowable and what is not. From the sources of Wiki Answers, "...to promote a uniformity of law throughout the country. Different states are free to disagree among themselves as to what laws govern in their states, but since most court made law comes from common law England, many legal principles have the same roots. Courts of different states do try to make rulings in line with other states even though they do not have to."
Although uniformity of law may be seem as both positive and negative. The negative sidepoint will be that uniformity shows that everything that happen will be the same, and there are no OTHERWISE! To rule autocratically is good, but democratically, it may seem absurb. Also, the expectability of the results may seem quite the same. Let's say there are so many cases of raping in Malaysia, and most of them will likely to get the same punishment, and out of probably thousand, only one exceptional case may happen. This simply leads to the restrictions of Judge to command and to open up to new debate. Why? Because let's say, if horizontally, most people will accept the results, but vertically, everyone might be thinking that, is that Judge trying to outrun the law of the Supreme Court, or getting some flashlight for himself. Thus this is not developing the study of law. And as time goes by, back to the 1800, the mentality of people are much different, with humans nowadays slightly more fabricated.
Thus, from that as usual, let's speculate some real case that is happening, in fact TODAY! Back in 1998, one of the Malaysia's most bizarre political scandal that involve the Deputy Prime Minister, accused and found guilty of sodomising a guy. Ten years later, after he was released from the prison of his act in 2004, he is once again being accused in the same story, with his personal assistant as well. For many of us, who knew the true story behind the court, many of us have regretted that incident, simply the media is making a truly bad name of the accused. However, this time, media are so broad and many are well informed that 1998 case may have some slippage of information. But decision have be made, so in 2010, with February 3rd the first day where their case begin, does it mean, it will be using Stare Decisis again?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
