He speaks about a "competent" court, which imply performing at an acceptable level compared to other courts, while at the same time ignores how much below the average layman was the performance of the lower court in its alleged inability to see that the guy shot dead that girl intentionally targeting her. Being competent is about performing at an acceptable intelligence level. The decision of the lower court acquitting the guy from shooting dead that girl intentionally targeting her was more like failing at the basic cognition level of a normal person. If, for example, a person solves fast a third degree algebra equation people would ask him how could he see the answer this quickly. On the other hand, if a person cannot see, for example, in two men standing close to him that one is taller than the other, people would ask that person what is wrong with him. The behaviour of that court in its acquittal of that guy was much closer to the second than the first of those two examples.
Even assuming that, for some reason, acquittal cannot be appealed that does not give the decision there an exemption from being scrutinized for competency at least like how any other thing the court may do can also be scrutinized for that competency. Things are scrutinized for competency because of what they could indicate about and their potential roles in making main final decisions like that. The connection of the acquittal decision is even stronger because it is itself a main final decision.
In summery, based on what the supreme court of appeal there itself said, it is wrong in deciding that the acquittal cannot be appealed at least for the reason mentioned above. The acquittal can be appealed through its being also an extremely clear competency issue.
No comments:
Post a Comment