First--a decent society is more important than legal niceties.

The legal niceties are important in making a decent society.

Well, so far Labour hasn't been able to gin up a decent society (and hey -- maybe they're to blame for it becoming indecent!!)-- so why trust them to manufacture one with changes like this?

Of course if you believe Cindy Sheehan, we're just a dial-up connection away from this ourselves. I blame Bush for his influence on PM Blair!

When the folk loses its spirit, the luxuries of liberty and civil rights become unattainable.

Trial by jury, the presumption of innocence, the rights to silence and of confrontation are, as David wrote, "important" to a decent society.

In our case, more than important, I would say, for while there are other ways to achieve justice, these are our ways. No one who understands police and politicians should wish to do away with our rights. This "the policeman is your friend" attitude is childish nonsense.

Now here is a mystery. The twin abominations of secularism and multiculturalism doom liberty. Gradually, loss of belief in Divine sanction makes our system of justice unworkable. Likewise, the sufferance of folk-enemies among us means justice will be prostituted to particularist sentiments--things like the OJ case. (The other OJ)

David:

No, they're important to a society that denies free will--the Second Way.

There's not much that strict penalties will accomplish if moral restraint isn't there to begin with.

OJ: So your theory is that socialist/communist countries are marked by the punctilious observance of the legal niceties while democratic/capitalist countries use the unconstrained power of the state to shape society as they see fit. That explains a lot.

Ali: "The crime rate is down, even as the incarceration rate is up." The best indicator that someone will commit crimes in the future is that he has committed crimes in the past. As a general proposition, sentencing is too lenient.

Lou: I thought about that sentence quite a bit. "Important" is, I think, just about right. Even though OJ is tripping, he's right that, when push comes to shove, the legal niceties will not stand between Americans and a decent society. If our lives and our families lives, our property and our security are widely threatened and the government cannot act, then we will take matters into our own hands. From where we are now, keeping the legal niceties in the forefront helps avoid that breakdown, but that can change if we're not careful.

This kind of reminds me of those people that argue that Catholic priests should be allowed to marry without even thinking about how that would change the nature of the priesthood or affect their other vows of poverty and obedience, or the sealed confessional. There are good reasons why the criminal trial system needs an overhaul, mainly the fact that it has been turned into a chess game by liberal jurists and it is in the technological dark ages. But it is simplistic and very dangerous to just take one part of it--presumption of innocence, solicitor/client privilege, etc.-- and think if you change that one thing all will be better. The presumption of innocence means a lot more than just giving the accused a leg-up.

Orrin:

You have argued persuasively against libertarians many times that the general public is simply never going to accept people starving on the streets or uneducated kids or no access to medical treatment no matter whose fault it is or who made the wrong choices. Do you think the public is anymore likely to accept the conviction and imprisonment of the innocent as a cost of doing business?

To the barricades!