A package of sweeping criminal justice reforms aimed at "rebalancing the
system in favour of the victim" will announced today by Home Secretary
David Blunkett.
The controversial measures, which include the scrapping of universal trial
by jury, have been fiercely critcised by civil liberty groups.
But the Government says the new Criminal Justice Bill will give greater
support to the victims of crime.
'Confidence trick'
Under the proposals, the double jeopardy rule, which prevents anyone being
tried twice for the same crime, will be scrapped.
The new law will also enable juries to be informed of a defendant's
previous convictions and judges to hear complex fraud trials without a jury
Labour peer Baroness Helena Kennedy QC blasted the reforms as a "confidence
trick" and a "quite frightening" attack on civil liberties.
'Knee-jerk reaction'
Other criminal justice agencies have predicted the reforms could increase
the prison population by 10,000.
It currently stands at 73,000 and jails are bursting at the seams.
A Home Office spokeswoman rejected claims that the Bill was a "knee-jerk
reaction".
Proposals expected in the Bill include:
* Reversing the double jeopardy rule in murder, rape and armed robbery
cases, with the change applying retrospectively
*Allowing some hearsay evidence in court
*Telling jurors of a defendant's or witness' previous convictions when they
are "relevant to an issue in the case"
*Abandoning universal trial by jury and instead allowing judges to sit
alone in serious fraud and other complex cases, or when there is a risk of
a jury being intimidated or bribed
*Allowing defendants to request trial by judge alone
*Jailing dangerous, violent or sex offenders on "indeterminate sentences"
so they can be kept inside after the end of their sentence if they are
still considered a risk to the public
*Bringing in intermittent custody, or "weekend jails", so offenders can
keep their jobs and family ties, particularly women with children
More Lawlessness...
Feds told to ignore information access law
Attorney General John D. Ashcroft has told federal employees that they can
evade and even ignore the Freedom of Information Act and he will even
defend their actions in court. — Washington Post
Experts question database snooping scheme
Many tech experts say looking for terrorists by rooting around in private
databases violates the Fourth Amendment. Some in the industry even refuse
to work on the project on ethical grounds. — Wired
ACLU sees surge in members since 9/11
Since Sept. 11, 2001 and the government's expansive campaign of monitoring
and detention, people from across the political spectrum are turning to the
ACLU to help safeguard their liberties. — Seattle Times
Anti-war movement gains momentum
The array of groups questioning the Bush administration's rationale for an
invasion of Iraq includes long-time radicals, but also people and
organizations with little history of activism. — Washington Post
Ethnic group in India claims repression from anti-terror law
India's government is accused of using anti-terrorism laws against a
tribal, non-Indian ethnic group, which has long been agitating for
independence. — CNS
Political speech restrictions challenged
In legal briefs, depositions and other sworn statements, defenders and
critics of controversial restrictions on political speech are making their
arguments to three federal judges. — Washington Post
http://civilliberty.about.com/library/blnews.htm
Always count to 10 before you upload.
Just ask the 16-year-old Utah high school student who spent seven days in a
youth detention center after posting intemperate comments about a school
principal and faculty members on his home Web site.
Apparently angered by some events at Milford High School, the young man
described his principal as a “town drunk” and disparaged a number of
teachers, describing one as “possibly addicted to speed or some other
narcotic.”
The student’s posted remarks were insulting, offensive and sophomoric, the
kind of conduct that would draw a grounding by most parents or even a
lawsuit by the ridiculed parties.
Not content with those options, Beaver County Attorney Leo Kannell instead
charged the young man with a crime, prosecuting him for violating an
obscure 1876 law prohibiting intentional and malicious statements that
damage someone’s reputation.
So-called “criminal libel” charges are rarely heard of these days and with
good reason. They’re a carryover from the days when people would shoot each
other in the street over a perceived insult. This archaic law was intended
to keep the peace.
Today these kinds of insulting statements are handled in civil cases. If
someone has damaged your reputation, you can sue him or her for damages —
far more satisfying in the long run than pulling a gun.
The U.S. Supreme Court has established special requirements for public
officials who want to sue, however. Recognizing that a democracy depends on
being able to criticize those in power, the Court concluded in 1964 that a
public official suing for libel must prove that the person making a false
and defamatory statement had to actually know it was false or have a
“reckless disregard” for the truth.
That decision gave the Utah Supreme Court the guidance it needed to toss
out the 16-year-old student’s conviction. The law simply didn’t provide
enough constitutional protection.
The upshot is that nobody won:
· The student can’t be convicted of criminal libel under the 1876
law, but the never-say-die prosecutor’s office also charged him with
violating a 1973 law.
· Whether that prosecution will proceed, though, is still in
question. Prosecutor Kannell was defeated in his bid for re-election.
Why all of this zeal directed toward a student making insulting remarks?
It’s not an isolated incident.
There’s an increasing temptation for school administrators to try to
control the speech of students off school grounds, particularly when
unpalatable viewpoints are posted on private Web sites. Sarcastic and
cutting comments that were once shared over lunch in the cafeteria now get
wider distribution via the Internet. Somewhere in that process, school
administrators — and occasionally prosecutors — forget that students are
also citizens who enjoy their own civil liberties. It’s not just a matter
of dusting off a 126-year-old law.
The principal in this case actually used the legal system as intended,
filing a civil suit, which was settled in 2001. Presumably, he received
something for his troubles.
For their parts, both the student and prosecutor received a little
education. The student learned that the right of free speech comes with
responsibility, while the prosecutor was reminded that the Constitution
also protects 16-year-olds.
In a country founded on freedom, we give all citizens — regardless of age —
remarkable latitude in criticizing public officials. That criticism has
limits, but the underlying principles can give voice to the unheard. It’s
not always pretty, but it does make us one special nation.
Ken Paulson is executive director of the First Amendment Center with
offices in Arlington, Va., and Nashville, Tenn. His mailing address is:
Ken Paulson
First Amendment Center
http://www.freedomforum.org/templates/document.asp?documentID=17316
