PFRDA

Do we need a TRIBUNAL to decide cases that are not defined adequately by present laws?

Has there been serious consideration for extrajudicial meaures to ensure that vulnerable people (elderly, mentally disabled), are not, or have not been, unjustly convicted? Have tribunals been considered for situations not adequately defined by law, to insure that people are not unjustly convicted due to faults in the legal system? There are tribunals to determine if a person qualifies for a disability pension. Can we trust a tribunal, consisting of responsible citizens, to do the same in criminal cases? Should anyone suffer due to a flawed legal system in Canada and the US? New laws are always being made. Isn't it reasonable to assume that we need new laws still? When new laws are made, do we assume that those who would not have been convicted under these new laws are innocent? Could a tribunal be used as a diagnostic system that would point out faults and lead to new laws? Would a more just justice system increase public confidence in it? Do we want it to be more just? The point is that there will always be situations that are not well defined by law, though PARTIALLY defined by it. As an analogy, say that 'killing someone' alone was the definition of murder. Person A kills person B, and it was clearly in self-defence. The law would define it as murder, and not consider any other factors, because those factors are not described in the law. Person A would be convicted of murder. We all know that such would not occur in court today IN THAT SCENARIO, though common sense tells us that limitations in the law PRESENTLY EXIST, simply because the law is flawed. The point is that, when it is the LAW that is flawed, it shouldn't be the CITIZEN who suffers the consequences. Any comment that does not specifically, seriously, and reasonably deal with the points above will be evidence that there is no good argument against the above. Any attempt to claim ‘rightness’ based on an arguer’s title is no argument at all. Arguments should be sufficient in themselves.

Public Comments

1. Yes, just check out Ex parte Quirin and Ex parte Milligan, as well as the more recent Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2005)
2. i want it like it is now with the new laws in place!
3. If they aren't defined adequately by present laws then, as I see it, we should let the people go. If new laws are necessary, in your opinion, and have a sound basis in fact, e-mail your representatives in Washington and tell them to get busy.