For starters, there's that age-old phrase "innocent until proven guilty". Is it someone's idea of a bad joke?
If being arrested, fingerprinted, posed for mugshots, locked in a cell and possibly swabbed for DNA is the acceptable standard for innocence, then it's a clear case of actions speaking louder than words.
Naturally there will be cases where the culprit is caught red-handed or those who are prepared to admit their guilt, but for those who maintain their innocence such treatment makes a complete mockery of the phrase.
Like it or not, people are treated as guilty until proven not guilty. There is no verdict of innocence - just reasonable doubt. Have the balls to own it, don't sell it as something it is not.
With increasing numbers of convictions being overturned on appeals, with and without the all-important DNA evidence, the failures of the system are becoming too commonplace.
Not helping matters is the rise in cases involving police corruption and/or impropriety.
If it is, in fact, a rise. You can't help but wonder if it's always been there but now we are fortunate enough to have better methods of detecting it.
We have also become braver as people, choosing to speak out about the crooked cops, refusing to be intimidated by their abuse of power.
That sickening systemic culture of never grassing on one of your own.
We are also promised a fair trial. If it is a high-profile case, that is highly unlikely.
Trial by media is probably a more apt description. When all the details of a case are broadcast into our living rooms and are talked about over dinner, what are the real chances of complete impartiality?
If it wasn't such a serious matter I'd suggest the queen of reality, Judge Judy, give court TV a trial. If the Oscar Pistorius case is anything to go by, it should prove a winner.
Then we come to the jury. Now it's not very often that I am in favour of anything that comes out of the United States but their rigorous questioning of potential jurors has some merit.
If I'm about to go on trial for a crime I'd like to think I had some measure of control when it comes to selecting those who will decide my fate.
A jury of your peers suggests people at the same level as yourself. Based solely on sight and without any questioning, how can you possibly know their level of intelligence, values, and ability to comprehend - let alone get a sense of their emotional wellbeing and character.
Your life could literally be in the hands of 12 village idiots, incapable of grasping the intricacies of the law or the complexity of scientific and forensic evidence.
When your liberty is at risk a "lucky dip" approach is not good enough.
Kill two birds with one stone, I say - create paid employment by making jurors an actual profession. Courts are forever bitching how few people turn up for jury selection, so this could be the answer.
And lastly there is name suppression. Unless it is necessary to protect the victims, name suppression should be abolished.
Courts are public buildings - anyone can attend. Their names are made public to everyone in the room, even yelled out for all to hear as their case is called so it seems like a pointless exercise to then suppress, especially with the social media of today.
If the system is as fair as it claims to be, you can clear your name and be found not guilty when you have your day in court. Sounds good in theory but nothing is perfect and there is certainly room for improvement.
Maybe we should let the jury decide ...
- Kate Stewart is a politically incorrect columnist who does not suffer fools gladly but does suffer from the occasional bout of hayfever - your feedback is welcome:investik8@gmail.com
