Posted                       

quote:

---

from the article:
When one reads the remarks of the judge knowing his belief system, one can only ask: did the judge view this case only on the context of the crime she actually committed, or also in the context of a crime against a god which may not be hers?

---

• What kind of sentence should inducing an abortion at 39 weeks carry?
• Is she actually guilty of inducing labour and killing her newborn child?
• Are the judges comments on the Abortion Act relevant?
• Is the judge right in how the statute law on abortion is indeed used very differently to how it was intended?
• What degree of freedom of thought are judges entitled to?
• Should we be concerned that the article appears to be saying that a judge who holds religious belief should not be a judge?

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by no prophet:
It is not right to impose personal belief on to judging of legal cases any more than it is right to impose personal feelings and belief on science experiments.

---

quote:

---

The point is that cases should go to judges who have expertise in particular areas. It is not much to have a professional set him/her self aside when a case might cause personal troubles.

---

quote:

---

I don't know how your system precisely works, but there could be an appeal here based on a judge's remarks, though the appeal would only be I think on the basis of whether the sentence is fit or not, and not about the specifics of the remarks if the sentence is fit.

---

quote:

---

I am reminded of the UK case of the counsellor who refused to counsel same-sex couples and lost his job. He refused to be a professional and set aside personal feelings and belief, and thus justly was dismissed. We've had the same thing here in Canada where marriage commissioners have been fired for refusing same sex couples. Again, the professional role must triumph. There really is no other way.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by alienfromzog:
In this article from the Guardian Amanda Bancroft asks this question:

quote:

---

from the article:
When one reads the remarks of the judge knowing his belief system, one can only ask: did the judge view this case only on the context of the crime she actually committed, or also in the context of a crime against a god which may not be hers?

---

I think we may be very close to dead-horse territory here but there certainly is a lot to discuss from the article... such as:

• What kind of sentence should inducing an abortion at 39 weeks carry?
  Comparable to that for infanticide. At 39 weeks, this really is murdering a baby. That is not a matter of pro- or anti- abortion rhetoric. The sentence should have taken into account whether she pleaded guilty or not guilty and that she doesn't appear to have been willing to own up to what she has done with the baby's corpse.
• Is she actually guilty of inducing labour and killing her newborn child?
  Yes
• Are the judges comments on the Abortion Act relevant?
  Remember that his comments have been mediated through the words of a hostile journalist. It is difficult though to disagree with the statement that the legislation has been misrepresented and "liberally construed in practice so as to make abortion available essentially on demand prior to 24 weeks with the approval of registered medical practitioners."
• Is the judge right in how the statute law on abortion is indeed used very differently to how it was intended?
  Yes. At the time the Act was passed, it was intended that abortion would be a rare concession to hard circumstances, only allowed after careful thought and investigation. It was also motivated by a wish to see off the knitting needle harpies. It wasn't envisaged that there would be clinics selling abortions, and providing rubber stamp medical approvals in duplicate.
• What degree of freedom of thought are judges entitled to?
  They should not be influenced or appear to be influenced by their personal quirks, but that also means they should not be more progressive than the public at large.
• Should we be concerned that the article appears to be saying that a judge who holds religious belief should not be a judge?
  Very.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
On the surface, there would appear to be a clear case for appeal. If nothing else, Lord Hewart's aphorism would apply.

It does not look like a proper decision was made, given the judge's rather fundamentalist religio-political views.

I realise that, whichever way a second opinion went, there would be some feeling of bias from one or another view - but at least the system would have been reviewed.

Editing to add that a judge's freedom of religion has the same limit as anyone else's: you can only go so far as the line where you start doing harm to someone else. 8 years and probably no psychiatric help is definite harm to an obviously troubled lady.

Of course, in Cameron's new England, the chances of someone getting the money to do an appeal is pretty remote, but, hey, ya gets what ya pays (or votes) for.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

I do not break the law - I AM the Law!!

---

quote:

---

• Be pure!
• Be vigilant!!
• BEHAVE!!!

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cod:
The justice system is not properly served if well-qualified judges either refuse, or are prevented from hearing, cases they are legally well qualified to deal with. As you say, it is up to the judge to put all personal feelings aside.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

1. the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk to the life of the pregnant woman greater than if the pregnancy were terminated (Abortion Act, 1967 as amended, section 1(1)(c))
2. the termination is necessary to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(b))
3. the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))
4. the pregnancy has not exceeded its twenty-fourth week and that the continuance of the pregnancy would involve risk, greater than if the pregnancy were terminated, of injury to the physical or mental health of any existing children of the family of the pregnant woman (section 1(1)(a))
5. there is a substantial risk that if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped (section 1(1)(d))

or, in an emergency, certified by the operating practitioner as immediately necessary:

• F to save the life of the pregnant woman (section 1(4))
  G to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman (section 1(4))

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Enoch:
She might have fitted into ground G if she'd sought an abortion early in her term. But at 39 weeks, whether she could or could not have had an abortion is irrelevant. So is how she would have been treated if she'd sought one at the proper time. At 39 weeks, this was a viable baby, not even classed as premature. There are probably plenty of shipmates who were born before 39 weeks or who loved, cared for and healthy children who were.

This isn't about abortion. It isn't about any 'right to choose'. Unless this baby had died in utero or died during birth, both of which are tragic and cause anguish to those afflicted, he or she should have lived.

Nor is anyone entitled to say, 'I have issues about pregnancy; so if I have a child, people should be sympathetic if I bump him or her off'. We don't accept that argument for 'I don't like the sound of a baby crying', or 'the baby was the child of my partner's ex-husband'.

For the same reason, it is not relevant what the judge's personal views on abortion might be. It is dishonest journalism to suggest that it might be.

The underlying premise in the article is:-

'This is a woman. Therefore she is a victim. Therefore we should be sympathetic'.

Either one accepts that, in which case all else and a lot more follows, or one doesn't.

---