… I want a systematic way of handling discipline. I don’t think we require - or can manage - the independent judiciary with formal representation of a national legal system, but I would like:
- well-defined rules - written if possible, including defences
- limits on executive power - immediate responses (or those without hearing) must be limited only to those necessary to maintain “peace, order and good governance” (or the like) and must not be punitive
- defined jurisdiction - it applies to everyone in the house, and to the immediate family when outside the house
- a judicial process - following at least some of the principles of natural justice including: impartiality of the presiding officer (so far as possible); the opportunity to confront an accuser; the opportunity to make pleas in mitigation; reasons for decisions; rules of evidence (e.g. at least hearsay, tendency and relevance) and requiring the discussion to be rationally focused at a time after the event in question
- fairness in punishment - whenever someone else within the jurisdiction (e.g. me) does something wrong, they are also punished
- public and private applications - any person can commence an action alleging a contravention of the rules by any other party; and any time I (or another person empowered to act in a judicial capacity, after training and affirming their allegiance to the rules) am aware of a breach of the rules I am required to initiate a hearing
- an appeals process - in particular a way to appeal against executive action as too harsh (with appropriate punishments), to appeal against convictions (where there is new evidence) and to appeal against punishments
- a training process - as children age, they can undertake the role of a judicial officer in disputes (where they are impartial), provided they have sufficient demonstrated understanding of how to do that
Why do this?
People talk about rape a lot. People also talk about the way the law works (or doesn’t work) a lot. It doesn’t help that a lot of these people are reporters making inaccurate claims from a position of authority.
The law is not perfect - far from it - and I will not defend it absolutely. It is, however, a lot better than people seem to think. By explaining what it is, hopefully people will get a better idea of what the mis-reporting really means, and where we need change. I also hope this will empower you to identify where specific changes are required and to let your lawmakers know what they are. Specific recommendations get more attention than general anger.
I’m going to be talking about the law but not about particular cases or facts. No gory details in here, but anyone who’s been through a traumatic trial might find reading this difficult.
Also, because I need to say it: this is not legal advice. If you want legal advice, go to a lawyer, engage them and obtain legal advice.
