There's nothing good to say about this:
A man accused of a grisly dismemberment killing has put Manitoba’s jury system on trial with a unique legal challenge that claims native people are being unfairly discriminated against.
Trial by peers is a critical part of the jurisprudence of a free people. But one of the most misapprehended and procedurally obscured aspects of this most cherished of rights and guarantee of non-interference by government is what is meant by peers — which as convention, both unwritten and codified, was best summed up by Patrick Henry:
That a man who stands accused of slaughtering and violating another human being can express sincere belief in the idea that “his people” will somehow see things differently and perhaps feel compassion for him — despite his confessing to the murder — shows what possible horrors lie in the notion of handing over justice, as well as any other social service, to the kangaroo court of special interest victimhood.
… and who are those who gain the most from justice to the accused and who stand to lose the most from denying it. Peers do not mean artificially segregated special interest groups with selective agendas that supercede the particulars of the case in court. It is hoped that the Charter's indulgent cross-pollination of collective and individual rights does not afford yet another opportunity for the elevation of special interests at the expense of justice.
"What is meant by his peers? Those who reside near him, his neighbors, and who are well aquainted with his character and situation in life."
Friday, August 25, 2006
Posted by MapMaster on Friday, August 25, 2006