Speaking of swearing, the Malaysian courts are going to table this in the Parliament that those making statements need not swear in beforehand. This means that the burden of proof now solely rests on the evidence.
When I read my Perry Masons, he always relies on the witnesses/accused (you can tell I still know nuts about these court terms even after reading Perry Masons and John Grishams) to tell the truth since they are oath. Hence, that part was never quite believable or relevant in this day and age.
I always wondered who aethists would swear to and also doubt if criminals really fear God more than they fear going to jail!
So now, our local CSIs will have a lot more work and evidence to proof. Coming up - CSI:Klang Valley. By the way, one of my pastors work in the Malaysian Chemistry Dept (I am told it's related to CSI-like work) and he's unassuming and a really funny chap. I haven't had the chance to ask him anything CSI related yet.
1 comment:
Ah, may I offer my services as after all I shall be a court rat by November.
Trust me, you would be bored stiff in an actual court. A lot of legalese and hardly any action.
Now the more interesting debate is whether the courts need to keep the accused in the docks during trial.
Dock: the enclosure where the accused sits throughout the entire trial.
In the american system, the accused sits with his lawyers.
Of course putting an accused there, under guard, would negate the presumption of innocent until proven guilty. Yet we have had cases where the accused have thrown slippers at the judge. ( I take back that bit about court being boring)
Let see which wins.
Post a Comment