[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]

01248: Re: [WDDM] French Inquisition Legal System

From: "Annette Jackson" <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au>
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2007 21:23:21 +1000
Subject: Re: [WDDM] French Inquisition Legal System

Eric,l have cheated and used Wikipedia to explain,a group l belong to called the David Symes Organisation said it was a system, more based truth and justice,then the adversarial system,

Inquisitorial system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about the inquisitorial system for organizing court proceedings. This is not to be confused with the system of religious courts established by the Roman Catholic Church for the prosecution of heresy. For this see: Inquisition.
Criminal procedure
Investigating and charging crimes
Criminal investigation
Arrest warrant  · Search warrant
Probable cause  · Knock and announce
Exigent circumstance
Search and seizure  · Arrest
Right to silence  · Miranda warning (U.S.)
Grand jury
Criminal prosecution
Statute of limitations  · Nolle prosequi
Bill of attainder  · Ex post facto law
Criminal jurisdiction  · Extradition
Habeas corpus  · Bail
Inquisitorial system  · Adversarial system
Charges and pleas
Arraignment  · Indictment
Plea  · Peremptory plea
Nolo contendere (U.S.)  · Plea bargain
Presentence Investigation
Related areas of law
Criminal defenses
Criminal law  · Evidence
Civil procedure
Portals: Law  · Criminal justice

An inquisitorial system is a legal system where the court or a part of the court is actively involved in determining the facts of the case, as opposed to an adversarial system where the role of the court is solely that of an impartial referee between parties. Inquisitorial systems are used in most countries in Europe and Latin America.

The inquisitorial system applies to questions of criminal procedure as opposed to questions of substantive law; that is, it determines how criminal enquiries and trials are conducted, not the kind of crimes for which one can be prosecuted, nor the sentences that they carry. It is most readily used in many, but not all civil legal systems. However, some jurists do not recognize this dichotomy and see procedure and substantive legal relationships as being interconnected and part of a theory of justice as applied differently in various legal cultures.

In some jurisdictions the trial judge may participate in the fact finding inquiry by questioning witnesses even in adversarial proceedings. The rules of admissibility of evidence may also allow the judge to act more like an enquirer than an arbiter of justice.

Although international tribunals intended to try crimes against humanity, such as the Nuremberg Trials and the International Criminal Court, have generally used a version of the adversarial system, they have also incorporated some key features of the inquisitorial system, such as the use of professional judges, and in the case of the International Criminal Court, the use of a screening pre-trial chamber. See the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for examples.

Contents

[hide]

Modern usage in France and other civil-law countries

Criminal justice

The main feature of the inquisitorial system in France (and other countries functioning along the same lines) in criminal justice is the function of the juge d'instruction, often translated as investigating magistrate or judge.

The juge d'instruction is a judge who conducts the investigations in the case of severe crimes or complex enquiries. He or she is independent from the political power as well as the prosecution. Contrary to the prosecution, which is, at the end of the day, supervised by the Minister of Justice, the juge d'instruction, as a judge, is independent of the executive branch.

One should point out that, despite the high media and fiction coverage of juges d'instructions, they are actually used in a small minority of cases. In 2005, there were 1.1 millon criminal rulings in France, while only 33000 new cases investigated by judges.[1] The vast majority of the cases are thus investigated directly by law enforcement agencies (police, gendarmerie), under the supervision of the state prosecutors (procureurs).

The judge hears witnesses and suspects and orders searches for other investigations. The goal of the juge d'instruction is not the prosecution of a certain person, but the finding of truth, and as such his duty is to look both for incriminating and exculpating evidence (à charge et à décharge). Both the prosecution and the defense may request actions from the judge and may appeal the judge's decisions before the court of appeal. The scope of the enquiry is limited by the mandate given by the prosecutor's office: the juge d'instruction cannot start to investigate crimes on his own accord.

While in the past, the juge d'instruction could order remand (that is, imprisonment pending trial) for defendants in cases that he supervised — this power being subject to appeal — this is no longer the case. Other judges have to approve any remand decision.

If the juge d'instruction decides there is a valid case against a certain suspect, he defers the suspect to a tribunal or court, where the proceedings oppose the prosecution and the defense. The juge d'instruction does not sit in the court that tries the case and is in fact prohibited from sitting on future cases involving the same defendant. The case is tried before the court in a manner similar to that of adversarial courts: the prosecution (and, possibly, the plaintiff "civil parties") generally ask for the conviction of the criminals, the defense counsels fight their claims, and the judge or jury draw their conclusions from the evidence shown.

Juges d'instructions are used only for the most severe crimes (murder, rape, etc.), and for moderately serious crimes (embezzlement, misuse of public funds, corruption, etc.) when the case has a certain complexity.

Due to the judicial enquiry and the possibility for defendants to have judicial proceedings cancelled on procedural grounds during the initial phase, cases where the evidence is weak tend not to reach the trial stage. Conversely, France, until recently, did not have a notion of guilty plea and plea bargaining, and now has it only for proposed sentences less than one year in jail. Most cases are thus tried in court, including cases where the prosecution is almost sure to win a conviction, whereas, in countries such as the United States, these would be settled by plea bargain.

Regards Martin Jackson

From: lpc1998
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 9:29 PM
Subject: [WDDM] French Inquisition Legal System

Hi Martin,

I have no idea about the French Inquisition legal system. Perhaps, you would like to explain what it is all about and list down its major strengths and weaknesses from the point of view of the ordinary French people.

Have  a nice day!

Eric Lim (lpc1998)


Annette Jackson <aja95799(at)bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Eric, the French have an Inquisitorial legal system, what do the people think of it,
Regards Martin Jackson
----- Original Message -----
From: lpc1998
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Sunday, June 10, 2007 4:54 AM
Subject: [WDDM] ATD 200705-04 - Shaking False Democracy to the Core

Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano, Mirek & Nicolas,

No Mirek, I do not make any claim "that only 6 members participated in the deliberation and approval of the present Charter. ...  " The relevant text of my email is reproduced below for easy reference. It begins with "For example, if ..." meaning that it is not a statement of fact or claim. It is only an illustration of, in this case, what I understand by a "true majority" in decision-making. I do not know how many members actually participated in the deliberation and approval of the present Charter. After the twists and turns of last year's attempt at writing the WDDM Current Oprating Rules, I have decided then to join the non-participating majority. Except for a couple or two which were open out of curiosity, most emails on the WDDM organisational matters were transferred to a folder unread. I do not wish to re-visit the circumstances surrounding last year's events.

==========================================

Eric:
"For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6 members participate in the deliberation process and even if all 6 approve and endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 6, because for it to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be approved by a simple true majority of 28 members out of 54 (i.e at least, 50%+1, the simple and honest meaning of a true majority)."

============================================

The figures 54 and 6 in this quote were picked up from an email I read out of convenience and what I thought to be closer to reality, but unfortunately it has caused confusion and for this I apologise.

For avoidance of confusion, I wish to amend the figures in the relevant text from 54 to 100 and 6 to 10 respectively. The substance and logic of my illustration remain unchanged. Thus, the amended version of the relevent text is as follows:

"For example, if we have a membership of 100, and only 10 members participate in the deliberation process and even if all 10 approve and endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 10, because for it to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be approved by a simple true majority of 51 members out of 100 (i.e at least, 50%+1, the simple and honest meaning of a true majority)."

==============================================


The issue of false majority is a critical one in the battle against false democracy. False majority is the core pillar of false democracy. This is because the ruling elites of a country seldom obtain a true majority in a ballot. So they invented a legal fiction majority. As an illustration, let us say there are 100 million voters in the country. Voters turnout is only 40%; i.e 40 million voters voted in the election. In order to declare a victor among the competing elites, they have written into the country's constitution that the condidate who polls the greatest number of "valid" votes wins. The "valid" votes in the illustration invariably would be less than 40 million after deducting the "disqualified" votes which includes the spoilt, blank and protest votes.

So in a false democracy:

1  The ruling elites survives on legal fictions contrary to the actual facts or truths;

2  They seldom have a true majority of 50%+1 of the total eligible votes and consequently they do not have the moral authority to govern the country. Their rule is often characterised by the extensive use of the coercive powers of the state;

3  Since they do not have the true majority of 50%+1 from the people, their claim of having won the mandate from the people is often not only false, but also an outright lie, a cheat and blatantly dishonest since such claims are made knowingly.

4  They conveniently disregard the voters who have rejected participation in their balloting processes and yet they shamelessly claim the right to govern these disregarded voters with their consent (the consent of these disregarded voters).

5  They conveniently justify the effective disenfranchisement of a very substantial number of voters, sometimes even a clear majority, on a so-called phenomenon of "voters' apathy" when, in fact, most voters who do not participate in the ballot or referemdum, do so intentionally because they have lost their confidence in the balloting system or processes. A fair and honest interpretation when a voter does not turn up to vote, is that he is, in fact, voting against all the prescribed condidates or issues and/or against the ballot system or processes.

6  The deeming of what the voter has, in fact, not done as having done by him through a dishonest legal process is a cynical and blatant violation of the individual's freedom of conscience or choice. The voter is effectively being robbed of his vote by a most undemocratic means.

7  The ruling elites sitting on a pedestal everywhere would most likely react vehemently against the insistence for a true majority in decision-making precisely because true majority exposes their deceit and lack of legitimacy and renders most, if not all, of their institutions and organisations unworkable.

In view of the above and of WDDM's mission to achieve true democracy for itself and for the people of the world, WDDM should reject false majority in its internal governance. Inspired WDDM members have to work hard and with preseverence to achieve true majority (50%+1) decision-making. Any candidate or issue that does not have 50%+1 of the total eligible votes does not have majority support. It is as straightforward as that. Any candidate or issue that receives 10 votes out of a total 100 eligible votes receives just that: 10 votes out of 100. Any legal fiction that converts these 10 votes into majority support is just fiction.

With such an achievement together with the resolute rejection of the use of false majority, WDDM would be leading people everywhere in shaking false democracy to the core.

==============================================


Mirek's Proposal:
"When a decision is to be made, every member must get all the information about an issue, and be informed that a vote will be held well in advance. Everybody can freely participate in all the deliberations and in the vote. If a member chooses not to participate in a vote, it will be deemed that (s)he abstained in this particular vote. By abstaining in a vote either explicitly or implicitly (by not participating at all), this member states that (s)he leaves the decision in this matters to others who are participating in the vote, and that when a decision is made,  (s)he will accept the decision made by others and not object to its implementation.
this would be the best incentive for everybody to participate if they have any opinion on the matter."


This proposal when adopted by WDDM would enshine in its Charter false majority for decison-making and would make it a false democracy too. And more importantly, WDDM would have surrendered the moral right to challenge or to lead others to challenge this core pillar of false democracy.

It also proposes to adopt the legal fiction of deeming non-participation of members as authorising others by such members to decide on their behalf. This is false and contrary to fact or truth, and a denial of a member's freedom of choice or conscience for non-participation. Also it is a bad precedence for deeming what the members or voters have not voted for as having voted for by them.

It also proposes to deny a member's right to object or to disregard decisions that do not have true majority support, a position any democracy believer is obliged to take.

In connection with the last point, it is also an implicit rejection of I&R. I&R is the mechanism for any member who objects, challenges or disputes any rule or decision of WDDM to have it amended or changed in a manner he/she believes to be necessary provided he/she could convince a true majority of the members to support the amendment or change he proposes even if such a rule or decision was made or supported by the current true majority or by a previous true majority that included him/her.

I&R ensures that no rule or decision of a democracy is cast in stone and put above the members or the people. It allows even a single member or voter, the minority of minorities, to begin a process that could bring about the necessary changes and makes progress possible.

Mirek, in view of the above, would you like to reconsider your proposal?

================================================


Nicolas:
"I am a very strong supporter of the blank vote. I think that it needs to be added to every poll and election, and be treated as another candidate or option, meaning that if more people vote blank than for a candidate or an option, things must be re-shuffled."

Yes, Nicolas, you are right. The people must have the option to vote officially against all the prescribed candidates or issues they do not support. I would advocate one step further: to be able to vote against the system or the ballot processes in which they have no confidence. It is duty of the officials concerned to build a ballot system the people can support. They should not be allowed to sweep their incompetence or treachery under the carpet of "voters' apathy".

As it is, apart from blank vote, there is a stronger alternative known as "protest vote". It is to draw a straight line diagonally across the ballot paper to leave no doubt that the voter is not endorsing any of the prescribed candidates and/or that the voter is voting against the ballot system or processes. It also demonstrates that the voter can think out of the boxes prescribed by false democracy and to deny false democracy the pretty little crosses in these boxes that false democracy would love so much to see.

Eric Lim (lpc1998)





"M. Kolar" <wddm(at)mkolar.org> wrote:
Dear Eric,
I think that you gave in your message below a very good summary of the
situation. I especially agree with:

> At this juncture, some members may ask why must WDDM itself be truly
> democratic so long as it could lead the world to true democracy. The
> simple answer is that an undemocratic WDDM has no credibility even to
> talk about democracy, let alone to lead others.

But I beg to differ with your claim that only 6 members participated in
the deliberation and approval of the present Charter. In fact, everybody
participated at least passively. Everybody was informed about the
deliberation and about the vote. They were actually repeatedly begged to
vote or express themselves somehow. If they didn't like the charter
proposal, why did they not voted explicitly against it??? It was so easy
to type NO in an e-mail. There are absolutely no sanctions in this group
against the way people vote (unlike in some false democracies you
mentioned). I suppose that it was made clear enough that not sending an
explicit vote equals abstaining in a vote. If it was not yet made clear
enough, it should be written in big letters somewhere. I do not see
personally other way how to operate in a group like this. In a real
country you may legislate that voting is compulsory, and fine people if
they do not come to the booth (I think Australia is doing that?). But I
do not think that is particularly vise even in a real-life society. Can
you really get an informed vote by dragging people by force to the
voting booth? All people should be of course encouraged by all means to
participate in decision making. But voluntarily, they should have a
choice not to participate when they don't feel like. Perhaps everybody
should be required to confirm that they were informed about a vote?
The basic principle should be: Everybody should get all the
information about an issue, be well aware that a vote will be held. And
it would be up to them if they will participate in the deliberations an
in the vote, and how they will participate. If they choose not to
explicitly vote, it will be deemed that they abstained in this
particular vote. I suggest that we officially adopt this principle at
WDDM, and write it up explicitly into the WDDM rules (or Charter). So
this is my formal request to the WDDM board to put this proposal in due
course to further discussion and vote (maybe as an amendment of Charter)..

Mirek


lpc1998 wrote:

> Dear PVR, Mark, Filia, Annette & Albano,
>
> The first step, in my view, we at WDDM could take towards true
> democracy is to understand the critical nature of the present WDDM
> members in order to tailor a true democracy Charter or Constitution
> relevant and meaningful to them. Continued obsession with WDDM history
> would only imprison us in the past and deny us our future possibilities.
>
> Those of us who had worked on the Current Operating Rules last year
> and earlier are generally conscious of the fact that WDDM
> members broadly comprise of two groups: Group A comprises of members
> who see WDDM as a cyber forum for the exchange of views and
> sympathies in an oasis of politically aware people (surrounded by a
> hostile world) who reject the Rule by the Representatives and their
> false democracy. Many of these people are excited over their personal
> visions of a true democracy where the ordinary people are sovereign.
>
> However, many are very busy and are fully committed in their own
> projects and programs and have neither the time nor the enthusiasm to
> develop WDDM further as a vehicle for the global development of true
> democracy.
>
> At least one member is allergic to the ballot and the majority will,
> and another who believes that true democracy must be imposed top
> down on the ordinary people by undemocratic means. And there are also
> some who preach true democracy like a religion to be accepted by blind
> faith and would want all heretics to be burnt on the stakes.
>
> Group B comprises of members who also sees great potential in WDDM as
> a global movement in the forefront in the battle for the advancement
> of world democracy. And some with faith so great that, despite the
> pain and anguish following every major setback, still soldier on,
> especially inspired by the talents and enthusiasm of new comers.
>
> Because true democracy is also associated with values such as the
> human rights, the freedom of the individual including the freedoms of
> the conscience, choice and association, the pursuit of individual
> happiness, political equality, respect for the decision of the
> majority made for the common good, unity in diversity, and so on, it
> is futile for the minority Group B members to try to impose their
> views and beliefs on the current majority Group A members, whether
> such imposition is done knowingly or unknowingly because democracy
> without its attendant values would quickly degenerate into the rule of
> the mob.
>
> Anyway, any rule or Charter approved a small minority of members has
> neither the moral or legal authority on the relatively vast majority
> who, in the first place, have nothing to do with it. At the very most,
> as it is it is only morally binding on those who participate in its
> deliberation and adoption and most probably, it will be ignored by the
> rest. For example, if we have a membership of 54, and only 6 members
> participate in the deliberation process and even if all 6 approve and
> endorse the Charter, it is only the Charter of the said 6, because for
> it to be a current majority decision of the WDDM, it needs to be
> approved by a simple true majority of 28 members out of 54 (i.e at
> least, 50%+1, the simple and honest meaning of a true majority).
>
> So the road to a truly democratic WDDM is a long and arduous one;
> there is no easy short cut based on a false majority. The Charter must
> be approved by at least a 50%+1 majority of the eligible voters. This
> is, in fact, a good thing as it would mean no hyjacking of WDDM by a
> small group of people.
>
> So what is the best cause of action that can be taken by the Goup B
> Members for a truly democratic WDDM? Yes, they must presevere in
> writing a truly democratic Charter or Constitution for WDDM, a
> Charter or Constitution that recognizes the Group A's rights as WDDM
> members and at the same time, respect its decision not to participate
> in WDDM's affairs.
>
> So in the Group B's deliberation and voting and to determine the 50%+1
> majority in decision-making, Group B has to maintain its own Register
> of Voters.
>
> It is important to remember that until the Charter is adopted by not
> less 50%+1 of the WDDM total membership, it remains the Charter for
> Group B only.
>
> Of course, it is tempting to resort to false majority for
> decision-making, but in so doing, WDDM would be just another false
> democracy claiming to democratic like so many false democracies. Do
> note that the undemocratic Bush had garnered about 30% of the eligible
> votes in the 2004 Presidential Election and our democracy should not
> be more false than his.
>
> The simple and honest truth is that for a true democracy to be viable,
> at least a comfortable majority of its members or citizens has not
> only to be reasonably informed, thinking and participating, but also
> has to be honest, fair and diligent in the handling of public affairs.
>
> For a truly democratic WDDM to emerge eventually, Group B members have
> to resolve to uphold democratic principles, practices and values truly
> and honestly, by both words and deeds, to a point when many Group A
> members would be inspired to cross over to Group B to assist making
> the necessary truly majority decisions for WDDM.
>
> At this juncture, some members may ask why must WDDM itself be truly
> democratic so long as it could lead the world to true democracy. The
> simple answer is that an undemocratic WDDM has no credibility even to
> talk about democracy, let alone to lead others. And most probably,
> like all false democracies, a small group of members will be speaking
> and promoting their personal democracy ideas in the name of many.
>
> Do also note that WDDM is a oasis of politically aware people. If we
> are unable to achieve true democracy in WDDM, we are not ready to face
> the politically inert masses in the outside world.
>
> So Ladies and Gentlemen, are we ready to take our first step towards
> true democracy?
>
> Eric Lim (lpc1998)


[Prev] [Next]   [Index]   [Thread Index]