You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘criminal law’ tag.

In todays Western Australian newspaper (our lovely attempt at news) was an article, announcing the banning of wearing those old grey/white wigs by lawyers and judges in criminal proceedings.

The article can be found here: WA judges, lawyers to dump wigs.

For those of you who don’t know what they are, legal wigs usually look like this:
Photobucket
They are incredibly expensive and are apparently made of horse hair.

Now, as far as my understanding goes, these wigs aren’t the most comfortable part of a lawyer’s dresscode, and they can be itchy, but why the need to ‘ban’ them from being worn?

The article suggests that many lawyers LIKE wearing the wigs. Many cite tradition as their reasoning, however there are others. So again, why ban the wigs?

The banning of the wig in courts doesn’t come as a huge surprise, they are already banned in civil trials in WA. What baffles me is this word ‘ban’. Why BAN something many people seem to like? Why not just make it optional? It seems all a little bit extremist in my opinion – if you don’t want to wear the wigs, don’t wear it. This man who banned them is clearly no fun and doesn’t like costumes! Don’t ruin something for everyone else who likes them! That’s not fair at all! I was kind of excited about one day being able to wear a wig in court… There goes that dream…

I guess I’ll have to settle for badly photoshopping a wig onto a photo of myself…
Photobucket

Come on WA Chief Justice! Make wig wearing ATLEAST optional, you’re taking half the fun out of being a lawyer!

p.s. i AM wearing clothes in that photo, it’s a strapless dress – wore it to law ball, only one i have of my head at the correct angle for the wig… see? YOU CAN SEE MY DRESS!

It came to my attention a couple of weeks ago that designer Alannah Hill has stopped using fur in her clothing, after protests by PETA.

I’ve always been in favour of PETA, I’ve always liked how they’ve stood up for the rights of creatures who can’t communicate in a language we understand. However, I recently changed my mind: I don’t like PETA anymore.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m still in 100% support of animal rights, and I don’t like fur as fashion – but that doesn’t mean I can condone the involvement of innocent small children where so called ‘anti-fur protests’ are involved.

It has been alleged, by some pretty reliable sources in my opinion, that PETA has taken it one step too far in harassing Alannah Hill’s young son in an attempt to scare her out of using fur in her clothing line.

Children are NOT responsible for their parents actions. And should not be punished for it. So why do PETA allegedly feel the need to involve someone who, in the eyes of the law, cannot be held liable for most of his own actions, let alone his adult mother’s?

If the above is true (and there is more than one source suggesting so), then PETA are no doubt headed for some serious lawsuits – and ones they well deserve. Scaring children! Seriously!

Now, I’m not suggesting ALL members of PETA feel this way, nor am I suggesting that they need a ‘taste of their own medicine’, however I am concerned here with the issue of extremeism.

As mentioned above, I don’t condone the use of fur in fashion and I never will. But we live in the 20st century man, do we really need to resort to such caveman approaches? Let’s try something a little more civilised – and perhaps legal? Make all the noise you like, but don’t threaten death upon a small child, or anyone else for that matter! Death threats are more than illegal, they cause freaking phsychiatric torture on anyone who receives them.

Obviously, as a result of all this, Alannah Hill has taken the safest, most intelligent option in removing animal fur from her line. But I reckon this particular decision was done due to fear of possible repercussions if she didn’t, rather than what SHOULD’VE been a decision based on a realisation that animal fur isn’t fair.

So PETA/scary extremeist sect of PETA, please be more creative and less fucking terrifying next time you have an issue with someone using fur…

SPEAKING of which: the fur they were protesting was bloody rabbit fur. Yes, I love bunnies and no, I’d never wear bunnies, but this appears to be a case of double standards. Rabbits, like cows, are used for their meat and they are in no short supply. If you’re going to fight for the bunnies, why the hell aren’t you out there standing infront of shoe shops? Because how different is common cow leather to common rabbit fur? Why aren’t they paying more attention to those poor endangered minks like they should be? Just saying… (Cos it’s fun to play devil’s advocate 😛 and cos I do feel especially sorry for those little minks.)

And just to play devil’s advocate a little more: why don’t you go tell the lions and the sharks to stop eating the deer and the fishies? You can’t deny what’s natural – if the bunny (poor bunny) is going to be eaten, unfortunately you might as well not waste it and use every part – it’s the traditional way.

Animal rights are right up there in my top ten most important things in the world – but let’s put this into perspective please – we don’t need to sacrifice our morals and threaten little children in the process of saving animals.

So there’s my rant. Hope it makes sense. It probably doesn’t. Oh well.
xoxo

I watched 60 Minutes on Sunday Night, god knows why… I guess I just did – until we flicked over to SO YOU THINK YOU CAN DANCE? – and listened to old ladies swearing and overly make-upped dancers get all excited and squealy over the fact that they got to dance ballroom/hip-hop/contemporary that week. How thrilling!

But dancing is not what this rant is to be about – despite how fun fun times dancing is!

So, back to 60 Minutes – honestly one of the most bogus programmes on television, it draws you in and sucks all your attention and braincells and warps you into some sort of addict for 60 minutes. And on Sunday night our best and favourite Christian Porter was on 60 Minutes! (How could I resist? Really!) Apparently the justice system is causing more and more controversy by the second! How could the justice system give some man who ran over a child whilst drunk driving be given such a short sentence?

Of course, this is such a frustratingly complex issue and trust me, one that is just no fun – especially as the argument then turns quickly to alcohol and it’s role in all of this – particularly when the law states you cannot use intoxication as an excuse. Of course, I was consequently baffled by how he got such a short sentence myself, considering the fact that alcohol is no excuse for bad behaviour!

This was not a one-off either! On Monday night, Today Tonight picked up the issue of our justice system. They chose to talk about criminal defence lawyers: good guys or bad guys?
Really, I don’t get why this is such an issue, if you’d been accused of a crime, you’d want your side of the story told! Especially if you believed you were innocent. The whole system revolves around this idea that an individual is innocent until proven guilty – one that I’m sure most people would agree to if they were placed in this position.

So why the sudden obsession with criticising the criminal justice system? Sure, it’s always being criticised, but it was just amended in an attempt to fix the problems! Give them some time, there’s a huge back log of cases in the system!

Well, this has undoubtedly all spawned off the case of the drunken brawl that left a police officer paralysed. It’s an awful story, and if the whole thing was filmed on a mobile phone, then how on earth did the accused’s (plural) get off?

Well, excuse me whilst I try and get hold of the case transcript…

But can we lay off the defence lawyers? They aren’t the bad guys!

Watch this space.

I’m sitting here, in Criminal Law II, and we’re discussing the new Homicide Laws in this sleepy little death toll town (aka Perth, thank you Panda Band for that song). I must say, the repealing of Infanticide upset me, mainly because it’s a section I never got to charge my imaginary clients with.

See, we get “scenarios” that the law dept at uni make up and we have to decide what we charge the imaginary people in the scenarios with, which is a favourite past time of mine: charging these made up characters with various, heinous crimes – without caring what their defences may or may not be.

I also don’t like the idea that I can no longer charge my imaginary criminals with wilful murder – because that’s been merged into murder, which is no fun. I loved condemning the imaginary criminals (good band name by the way) in the scenarios to life imprisonment for wilful murder; it sounds just that much worse. Imaginary crime fighting is my thing, clearly. I should be an imaginary superhero. Can you imagine it? SuperGeorgia! Or something along those lines… As long as I was super buff and had some cool power to control nature like Poison ivy. And I’d need a cooler name, probably something based on whatever power I had. I’m one confused imaginary superhero.

Anyways, back to the law, no more infanticide means that the post-natal-ly depressed mother is now a murderer, who will get a much harsher sentence. Of course, killing your baby is sick, but let’s not make it worse! Let us try and rehabilitate the mother, who is probably super grieving.
There are many more issues we could discuss with these new homicide laws but they’re just not that interesting, or we haven’t discussed them in class yet, thus I haven’t really thought very deeply about them. When I do, I may share them with you.

Until then, I shall continue to fight imaginary crime as an imaginary superhero. Because that is my new life’s calling.

Over and out!
Georgia,
premature cat lady by day, imaginary superhero by night!