<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: On bad precedents</title>
	<atom:link href="http://terahertzatheist.ca/2010/03/11/on-bad-precedents/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://terahertzatheist.ca/2010/03/11/on-bad-precedents/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 19:56:32 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ADHR</title>
		<link>http://terahertzatheist.ca/2010/03/11/on-bad-precedents/comment-page-1/#comment-35109</link>
		<dc:creator>ADHR</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 15:30:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://terahertzatheist.ca/2010/03/11/on-bad-precedents/#comment-35109</guid>
		<description>I agree that this shouldn&#039;t affect this verdict. But I&#039;m not sure it shouldn&#039;t affect the state of the law. After all, I think it&#039;s widely-accepted that Jaffer got off very, very easy. There should be some sort of mechanism to ensure that, in such cases, it&#039;s at least clear what extenuating circumstances justified the decision, and the judge should have to explain (not defend, explain) the decision adequately.

I&#039;m okay with giving judges a lot of power, but they need to be accountable -- in the sense of offering good justifications -- and trained better than they are -- to know more than lawyers know. I don&#039;t see either holding particularly well in this case.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that this shouldn&#8217;t affect this verdict. But I&#8217;m not sure it shouldn&#8217;t affect the state of the law. After all, I think it&#8217;s widely-accepted that Jaffer got off very, very easy. There should be some sort of mechanism to ensure that, in such cases, it&#8217;s at least clear what extenuating circumstances justified the decision, and the judge should have to explain (not defend, explain) the decision adequately.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m okay with giving judges a lot of power, but they need to be accountable &#8212; in the sense of offering good justifications &#8212; and trained better than they are &#8212; to know more than lawyers know. I don&#8217;t see either holding particularly well in this case.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
