Friday, 28 June 2013


The very sad case of the murder of teenager Liam Aitchison has been brought before us again by the sentencing today of the pair convicted of his killing.
But a question mark has been placed above the process which led to the conviction.
Local journalist Iain X. Maciver points out in the article below some areas which concern him.
Now don't get me wrong, all things considered I have to say that it really does look like the convicted pair are indeed guilty. But is that enough to convict? That is the question.
Iain makes a valid point.
Now in my view (this view is based on my reading of the Bible. In days gone by, all UK laws were fundamentally based on the Bible - what else would you base it on?) all justice must be seen to be done before it can possibly be called justice. The only way we can do this is to make it completely public. In the olden days before modern technology existed, we had the area in courtrooms reserved for the general public so that we could say that justice had been witnessed by the people and therefore had been 'seen to be done'. A crucial point. As soon as something is done in so-called 'private' we have crossed the line. When used in this context the word 'private' is just a euphemism for 'secret'. We have the same problem in churches. Self-important and self-righteous people assuming they know best and imposing their will.
So what's my point?
Well it's this. That all courtroom proceedings should be open to every means of facilitating public scrutiny. We still have the public gallery of course, but nowadays we have something more. We have the god of the age - Television. We have the technology - let's use it. They've been televising court cases in America for years. Remember O.J. Simpson? This is not for entertainment. Just because some people get a thrill out of the wrong things doesn't alter what's right.
Public scrutiny - the only process which can protect us from the abuse or misuse of power.
Link to Iain X. Maciver's article.

No comments:

Post a Comment