Subject:
|
Re: Justice for all.....
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Mon, 22 Dec 2003 17:52:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1181 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Pedro Silva wrote:
> > > In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Don Heyse wrote:
> > > > Thanks for the link. It highlights yet another reason the world
> > > > is not yet ready for a global court system. Money. Until the
> > > > economic disparity in the world is reduced significantly, there is
> > > > too great a possiblilty that economically disadvantaged countries
> > > > can be bribed. Even more patience is required for that one, I think.
> > >
> > > That hasn't bothered rich countries from joining in thus far.
> > > Richer than the US, per capita, I might add. So whose money,
> > > bribing whom, to what end?
> >
> > Does it really matter who or what money?
>
> Yes. And "to what end" as well, don't leave that one out.
>
> > The fact that it's possible,
> > and the previously linked article demonstrates that it's already
> > happening means that the ICC is being influenced by money. That needs
> > fixing before the ICC will ever work.
>
> And what do you propose to "fix it", if anything?
Charge anyone caught bribing smaller countries with war crimes?
> > > If it were for money alone, the ICC would be swamped in trials already.
> >
> > I don't know what you mean by this.
>
> Two things: if money could buy charges in the ICC that easily, the court would
> be overwhelmed with legal actions already. If it were money that countries
> sought on it, they would be incredibly disappointed, as this court has the
> purpose of establishing penal sentences and not fines or indemnities (read,
> arrest criminals rather than making them pay off)
>
> > > > However, now that the EU has a single currency, perhaps they could start
> > > > a bit smaller with an EUCC, show everyone how well it works, and slowly
> > > > try to entice other nations to join.
> > >
> > > The EU has had an European Court of Justice for a number of years now,
> > > and so far no problems have arisen; I suspect there is no need for a
> > > specific court aimed at war crimes, them being conspicuously absent
> > > from the EU's internal life.
> > > Also, all the current 15 memberstates have signed up to the ICC, as
> > > well as 9 of the 10 upcoming members (exception being the Czech Republic
> > > - don't ask me why, I don't know).
> >
> > That's great. Now get those pesky Czechs to sign up. Bring in the
> > Baltics, and some North African countries. Then run with it for a few
> > years to show us how well it all works. With 911 in *our* recent past,
> > some of us are just a bit more paranoid over here.
>
> The Baltics are in (part of the 10 upcoming members mentioned before).
Sorry, I blame my crappy US lack of education for that one. I meant
the Balkans.
> The North African countries are not part of Europe... so I don't see a
> need to refer them - you had previously asked about the EU's stance on
> the matter, and that's what I was addressing.
Yeah, but North Africa is geographically closer to Europe than the US.
And there is a history of European meddling in their politics, so I
thought they might stress the system a bit more so we could see how it
works under pressure.
> The thing about your idea of letting the RotW "test" the court before the
> US thinks of joining is that it sets a double standard for no better
> reason than, in your own words, paranoia.
Why are you so eager for the US to join up? Is it a double standard
to try on clothes before you buy them? Don't the nice restaurants let
you taste the wine before you order a bottle? What's the hurry?
> > > The amazing thing is how noone in these nations seems to be bothered by the
> > > ICC... I tend to think the excuse of "others will sue us for this and that,
> > > blablabla" is rather lame, since being *accused* does not imply being
> > > *condemned*. If you've done nothing wrong, and the burden of proof is not
> > > on you, why worry?
> >
> > Have you ever been in court?
>
> Nope, I've never been on trial or accusing anyone. Which is not that
> awkward, given age and legal system involved :-)
> But I do follow court rulings & procedures.
I'd think after watching the OJ trial on TV, you wouldn't want
the US involved in your legal system.
> > I don't think that burden of proof stuff
> > always works as well in actual practice as it does in theory.
>
> Please ellaborate what you mean.
When people are involved, nothing works as well in practice as it
does in theory. Look at economics. You can do all sorts of nifty
mathematical extrapolations with supply and demand, but once you
involve actual people the rules don't work because they introduce
too much chaos.
Here's a little experiment you can try at home. Get yourself a
traffic ticket and then go to court to try and fight it. Take note
of whether or not burden of proof ever enters into the picture.
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Since it's Christmas^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hthe Holidays, I figure I should throw in this nugget for you debators. I also think this is the problem with Libertarianism (is that a word?) In Theory it sounds like a really good system, but it falls (...) (21 years ago, 22-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Good example. The system has been set up to exempt tickets from due process, in my view, because they say driving is a priv, and it's not a criminal offence but rather a civil infraction and a bunch of other stuff. That's their explanation, (...) (21 years ago, 22-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) I stress again that I find this relevant. (...) Oh bribery is a crime all right. But I doubt it can fit the definition of war crime. Care to prove me wrong? (...) True, it is close to Europe (we use the term "Mediterranean Basin" as well when (...) (21 years ago, 22-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Justice for all.....
|
| (...) Yes. And "to what end" as well, don't leave that one out. (...) And what do you propose to "fix it", if anything? (...) Two things: if money could buy charges in the ICC that easily, the court would be overwhelmed with legal actions already. (...) (21 years ago, 20-Dec-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
52 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
