2 ms·
Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seem
by petesergeant 2y ago
Sure, and we can’t know the minds of others, so the hypothesis is unprovable either way. I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants, than the other way around, given that it gives the prosecution a lot more time to get their case solid, and given that there’s no risk of hitting double jeopardy restrictions.
If I was at the center of this, I’d prefer to have a trial before an inquiry, rather than inquiry followed potentially by a trial.
- mannykannot 2y agoI imagine some of the people involved would indeed prefer a trial before all the evidence has been unearthed, even though that worked out so badly for their victims.
- krisoft 2y ago> I would say that public enquiry followed by a trial (if warranted) seems a generally worse outcome for potential defendants I agree with your reasoning but I can't recall any single examples where it worked out that way. That being said I don't store the full history of British legal system in my mind. Maybe you have some examples where someone got punished due to a public enquiry?
- petesergeant 2y agoNothing springs to mind, and I’m too lazy to research it, but in lieu, here’s an interesting adjacent article: Why the next Westminster scandal is already here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-westminster-scandal-is-already-here https://www.economist.com/britain/2024/06/26/why-the-next-we...