Janitor of Lunacy wrote:
> wrote in message
> news:10d56754-93ea-403d-b8fe-77259ebef48a@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On 25 Mar, 17:40, "Janitor of Lunacy" wrote:
>>>
>>>> If Gregg v. O'Gara is establishing in law the precedent that we
>>>> have no legal right to say a man has been wrongly convicted,
>>>> because it automatically implies that someone is (a) incompetent
>>>> or (b) corrupt, then we have entered dangerous legal and societal
>>>> territory in terms of the implications for civil liberties in this
>>>> country.
>>> It is not establishing any such thing. First-instance decisions ver
>>> rarely
>>> create precedent, and then only persuasively. This decision binds no
>>> other court.
>> But it gags us all because it signals to all of us that if we oppose
>> a miscarriage of justice in the future, we risk a libel suit and a
>> massive bill for costs which very few can absorb.
> tl;dr
Hear, hear.
Compare this case to a genuine miscarriage of justice case - the Birmingham
Six, for example. (Back on topic for SCI if we ever left).
It's always possible to make a case that a miscarriage of justice has
occurred. It's usually helpful if one is doing this with the support rather
than the opposition of the supposed victim. What it isn't possible to do is
to assert that a miscarriage of justice has occurred due to a particular
individual's personal corruption, without a smidgeon of evidence.
--
J/
SOTW: "Rat(tlesnake) In Mi Kitchen" - UB40
www.tolife.shadowcat.name
|