No easy answer, but might be worth increasing discounts for guilty plea. 50% if at earliest opportunity. Then a sliding scale. Would attract those who would be released on time served. This also help to clear prisons. And go some way to addressing sentencing inflation.
After all, prison nowadays only achieves two objectives: punishment and prevention. No room for rehabilitation.
I also think it is the responsibility of the senior judiciary to explain clearly and PUBLICLY what capacity the system has and what changes they consider could sensibly be made to improve the situation and reduce the backlog with current capacity. Wasted and unused Court capacity are not the same but I guess they are both problems.
Well said, Catherine Edgar, in the sense that- a number of years ago for example- those students to me when I was still a very active criminal defence advocate clearly LOVED what they observed and were absorbed in it, convinced like me that it was a noble strand of legal practice. And yet: then they would tell me, with much regret, that they would have to turn to SAFER, actually REMUNERATIVE fields of law in order to pay their University fees, get married, etcetera,etcetera- rather than take what they viewed as a leap into a void with a disregarded and even maligned aspect of practice. I was disturbed and puzzled by what is effectively the reduction in sitting hours, where it seems like the pantomime horse with two heads pulling in opposite directions. Reduce the backlog ? Absolutely . And so: you reduce the sitting hours? Yes, financially we are as a nation in straitened circumstances, but……? Whose responsibility is it? The government’s. But as Joshua says where is the required workforce of both solicitor and counsel advocates to come from in order to take on more cases. Back to remuneration and appropriate recognition and endorsement of our work?
Roll on a worthwhile review of the reality and viability of this caring and vital facet of a caring profession. As to the sentencing review, then the sooner we get real over those who TRULY NEED to be confined the better. Half the trouble in my view is a species of nimbyism, that is:” Of course, we should reduce the proportions of our fellow citizens in prison, but (for retailers) NOT shoplifters, (for this, for that activity and wrongdoing) NOT for……..” Such exceptionalist approaches threaten to kill any outbreak of reality over overuse of prison STONE DEAD.
As a law student, observing and experiencing the persistent shortcomings of the justice system and its failures, I question why I would want to become a part of it.
For the past four years, I've been trying to draw attention to the failures I've faced as a litigant in person, fighting for my fundamental right to be treated equally. My intent in becoming a law student was to effect change.
But despite my efforts, every attempt has been met with closed doors and a lack of accountability. I’m the elephant in the room. It is clear now that I will never be able to improve the system because no one is willing to listen to me as a truly isolated litigant in person—they simply don't want it changed.
The Lady Chief Justice in Northern Ireland ignores me. The Department of Justice and the judges I encounter shoo me away. The Department for the Economy, under which the Industrial Tribunal operates, does not care about justice. The Equality Commission responds with 'radio silence,' and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission remains shamefully passive.
This morning, I’m sitting in my university library, preparing my oral arguments for the defamation proceedings brought against me for telling the truth in an effort to raise awareness, achieve accountability, and encourage reform within the system. The justice system seems beyond improving.
This isn't a crisis in confidence; it is my reality.
No easy answer, but might be worth increasing discounts for guilty plea. 50% if at earliest opportunity. Then a sliding scale. Would attract those who would be released on time served. This also help to clear prisons. And go some way to addressing sentencing inflation.
After all, prison nowadays only achieves two objectives: punishment and prevention. No room for rehabilitation.
I also think it is the responsibility of the senior judiciary to explain clearly and PUBLICLY what capacity the system has and what changes they consider could sensibly be made to improve the situation and reduce the backlog with current capacity. Wasted and unused Court capacity are not the same but I guess they are both problems.
Well said, Catherine Edgar, in the sense that- a number of years ago for example- those students to me when I was still a very active criminal defence advocate clearly LOVED what they observed and were absorbed in it, convinced like me that it was a noble strand of legal practice. And yet: then they would tell me, with much regret, that they would have to turn to SAFER, actually REMUNERATIVE fields of law in order to pay their University fees, get married, etcetera,etcetera- rather than take what they viewed as a leap into a void with a disregarded and even maligned aspect of practice. I was disturbed and puzzled by what is effectively the reduction in sitting hours, where it seems like the pantomime horse with two heads pulling in opposite directions. Reduce the backlog ? Absolutely . And so: you reduce the sitting hours? Yes, financially we are as a nation in straitened circumstances, but……? Whose responsibility is it? The government’s. But as Joshua says where is the required workforce of both solicitor and counsel advocates to come from in order to take on more cases. Back to remuneration and appropriate recognition and endorsement of our work?
Roll on a worthwhile review of the reality and viability of this caring and vital facet of a caring profession. As to the sentencing review, then the sooner we get real over those who TRULY NEED to be confined the better. Half the trouble in my view is a species of nimbyism, that is:” Of course, we should reduce the proportions of our fellow citizens in prison, but (for retailers) NOT shoplifters, (for this, for that activity and wrongdoing) NOT for……..” Such exceptionalist approaches threaten to kill any outbreak of reality over overuse of prison STONE DEAD.
Well said.
As a law student, observing and experiencing the persistent shortcomings of the justice system and its failures, I question why I would want to become a part of it.
To improve it?
For the past four years, I've been trying to draw attention to the failures I've faced as a litigant in person, fighting for my fundamental right to be treated equally. My intent in becoming a law student was to effect change.
But despite my efforts, every attempt has been met with closed doors and a lack of accountability. I’m the elephant in the room. It is clear now that I will never be able to improve the system because no one is willing to listen to me as a truly isolated litigant in person—they simply don't want it changed.
The Lady Chief Justice in Northern Ireland ignores me. The Department of Justice and the judges I encounter shoo me away. The Department for the Economy, under which the Industrial Tribunal operates, does not care about justice. The Equality Commission responds with 'radio silence,' and the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission remains shamefully passive.
This morning, I’m sitting in my university library, preparing my oral arguments for the defamation proceedings brought against me for telling the truth in an effort to raise awareness, achieve accountability, and encourage reform within the system. The justice system seems beyond improving.
This isn't a crisis in confidence; it is my reality.