The case for judicial independence.

There are several compelling arguments against the direct election of judges by the public. While the concept of electing judges may seem democratic, it can pose significant risks to the integrity, independence, and impartiality of the judiciary. Here are fully explained arguments against electing judges:

1. **Judicial Independence**: Elected judges may feel pressured to cater to public opinion or special interest groups in order to secure votes and win re-election. This pressure can undermine judicial independence, which is crucial for judges to make impartial and fair decisions based solely on the law and evidence presented before them. Without independence, the judiciary's ability to act as a check on the other branches of government and protect individual rights may be compromised.

2. **Political Influence and Bias**: Judicial elections can become highly politicized, with candidates aligning themselves with particular political parties or ideologies to appeal to voters. This politicization of the judiciary can lead to judges being perceived as biased or partisan, eroding public trust in the fairness and impartiality of the legal system. Furthermore, elected judges may feel beholden to political donors or interest groups, raising concerns about conflicts of interest and the integrity of judicial decision-making.

3. **Lack of Qualifications and Experience**: Judicial candidates in electoral systems may not always possess the necessary qualifications, experience, or legal expertise required to effectively adjudicate complex legal matters. Elections prioritize popularity and campaign skills over legal knowledge and competence, potentially resulting in underqualified individuals occupying judicial positions. This can undermine the quality and credibility of judicial decision-making and diminish public confidence in the judiciary's ability to uphold the rule of law.

4. **Short-Term Decision-Making**: Elected judges may be inclined to make decisions based on short-term political considerations or popular sentiment rather than the long-term interests of justice and the rule of law. This can lead to inconsistent and arbitrary rulings, as judges may prioritize re-election prospects over the principles of fairness, equality, and legal precedent.

5. **Vulnerability to Populist Sentiment**: Judicial elections can be susceptible to populist sentiment and emotional appeals, particularly in high-profile or controversial cases. Public opinion may sway judges to make decisions that are popular but legally unsound, undermining the principle of judicial independence and the rule of law. In such cases, the rights of minority groups or unpopular individuals may be at risk of being disregarded or violated.

6. **Undermining Merit-Based Selection**: Judicial elections bypass established merit-based selection processes, such as judicial appointments commissions or independent nominating bodies, which aim to identify and appoint the most qualified and impartial candidates to the judiciary. By politicizing the selection process, electoral systems undermine the meritocratic principles essential for maintaining a competent and independent judiciary.

Overall, while judicial elections may appear democratic on the surface, they can pose significant threats to judicial independence, impartiality, and the rule of law. To preserve the integrity of the judiciary and uphold the principles of justice, it is essential to maintain non-partisan, merit-based selection processes for appointing judges based on their qualifications, experience, and commitment to upholding the rule of law.

Pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime

I was bemused at Fitzgerald Hind’s publicly expressed opinion that pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime. Granted, in the same vein that he expressed this opinion, he also stated that “I am no sociologist, I am not criminologist [sic] but I am almost certain that they are.” [Daily Express 2/4/23, https://tinyurl.com/5c2aha3u].

I thought such outdated thinking was debunked many moons ago, but here comes our National Security Minister, arguing from authority and emotional thinking, simultaneously making two well-known critical thinking errors in one statement.

To quote from the article, “Responding to Hosein’s comments, Hinds expressed doubt about crime being linked to poverty and unemployment.

“The jury for me is out on that.”

He seems to have been asleep before, during and after the jury delivered on the social determinants of crime.

Might I suggest to the goodly minister that he investigate and make ample use of ChatGPT, a well-known open-source Artificial Intelligence (AI) which provides answers more rooted in reality. ChatGPT, when asked the question, “what are the main social determinants of crime?”, gave the answer below:

“Social determinants of crime are complex and interconnected factors that influence the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal behaviour. These factors are rooted in social, economic, and environmental conditions. Some of the main social determinants of crime include:

1.        Poverty: Poverty can lead to feelings of desperation, frustration, and hopelessness, which can contribute to criminal activity as people search for ways to meet their basic needs or escape their circumstances.

2.        Education: Lower levels of education are associated with a higher likelihood of criminal involvement. Lack of education can limit job opportunities and social mobility, leading to increased vulnerability to criminal activities.

3.        Family structure: Dysfunctional or unstable family environments can contribute to the development of antisocial behaviour and delinquency, especially when there is a lack of proper supervision, positive role models, or emotional support.

4.        Peer influence: The influence of peers, particularly those involved in criminal activities, can increase the likelihood of an individual participating in crime. Peer pressure and the desire to fit in or gain social status can contribute to criminal behaviour.

5.        Unemployment: High unemployment rates can lead to financial insecurity, social dislocation, and frustration, all of which can contribute to criminal behaviour.

6.        Social disorganization: Communities with high levels of social disorganization, such as those characterized by residential instability, weak social networks, and limited community resources, often experience higher crime rates.

7.        Substance abuse: Alcohol and drug abuse can impair judgment, exacerbate existing mental health issues, and contribute to criminal behaviour, both directly (e.g., drug-related offenses) and indirectly (e.g., property crimes to support a drug habit).

8.        Inequality and social exclusion: Significant income disparities and social exclusion can lead to feelings of resentment, marginalization, and anger, which may contribute to criminal behaviour.

9.        Cultural factors: Cultural values and norms that condone or even encourage criminal behaviour can contribute to crime. For example, some subcultures may view certain criminal acts as acceptable or even prestigious.

10.      Mental health: Mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, or personality disorders, can increase the risk of criminal behaviour, particularly when left untreated or combined with other risk factors.

It is important to note that these factors are not mutually exclusive, and multiple determinants may interact to influence an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour. Addressing these social determinants is critical to reducing crime rates and promoting public safety.”

ChatGPT even provided references for the link between crime and poverty:

“How strongly is poverty associated with crime levels and give me some good references, please.”

“The association between poverty and crime levels is well-established, though the strength of the relationship can vary depending on various factors, including location, type of crime, and the specific measures used to assess poverty. Research indicates that people living in poverty are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime, particularly property and violent crimes.

Here are some references that can provide more insight into the relationship between poverty and crime:

1.        Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530-539. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646711

2.        Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and Inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

3.        Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loayza, N. (2002). Inequality and Violent Crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 1-39. URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/338347

4.        Sharkey, P. (2009). Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap. Economic Mobility Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts. URL: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/neighborhoods-and-the-blackwhite-mobility-gap

5.        Chiricos, T. G. (1987). Rates of Crime and Unemployment: An Analysis of Aggregate Research Evidence. Social Problems, 34(2), 187-212. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/800558”

Mr Hinds seems out of his depth in thinking at a higher level beyond the Nicki Minaj approach to serious issues. I can only hold my head in despair at what further depths the country’s crime situation will plummet over the next few years.

What are the duties of a doctor in the UK?

 The duties of a doctor in the UK can vary depending on their specialty, but generally include the following:

•     Diagnosing and treating illnesses and injuries: Doctors are responsible for examining patients, reviewing their medical histories, and making a diagnosis based on their symptoms and test results. They then create a treatment plan, which may include prescribing medication, recommending surgery, or referring the patient to a specialist.

•     Monitoring patients: Doctors monitor their patients' progress and adjust treatment plans as needed. They may order additional tests or procedures to determine the effectiveness of the treatment and make changes as necessary.

•     Preventive care: Doctors provide guidance on maintaining good health and preventing illness, including advice on diet, exercise, and lifestyle changes.

•     Medical research: Doctors may engage in medical research to advance the understanding of diseases and treatments, and to develop new therapies.
  

•     Supervising medical staff: Doctors may supervise other medical professionals, such as nurses and physician assistants, to ensure that patients receive high-quality care.

•     Continuing education: Doctors are required to stay up-to-date with medical advances and technologies by attending conferences and training sessions.

•     Record-keeping: Doctors are responsible for keeping accurate and complete medical records for their patients.

•     Ethical responsibilities: Doctors are bound by ethical and professional standards, including maintaining patient confidentiality and avoiding conflicts of interest.

Overall, the primary duty of a doctor in the UK is to provide high-quality medical care to their patients, while upholding professional and ethical standards.

Cure for cancers found and covered up

This is an incredible story. It's unbelievable. Burzynski has found a set of specific treatments called Antineoplastons. I'm not going to explain it to anyone. Those who wish to learn more and study the videos - total of 3-plus hours  - will find out that the cure has been proved and developing for over 30 years. 

   

 Well the shear stupidity of large systems and people in the above was overwhelming. If you want to understand the depths of human nature and it's stupidity you'd watch the whole lot. Obviously 99% of people - in my estimate - have bigger priorities, like: dog-bathing, filing their nails, scratching their behinds while watching Netflix, boozing, socialising etc etc 

Over $USD 100Million was spent hounding Burzynski.

   

The above shows the actions of the American government. Burzynski is going to be a candidate for the Nobel Prize. If he gets it that'll be like a hot ramrod, up the jacksie of each institution who hounded him. 

These two videos reinforce my contention that:

1. Human belief is a dangerous thing.
2. Human nature is inherently more stupid than intelligent.
3. Evidence is often useless.
4. BigMedia and Social media are dangerous places.
5. One can be guilty by reason of sanity.

Supplemental: 

The Burzynski Clinic 

The Burzynski Research Institute 

 

Is Dr Rowley hijacking the Presidency of T&T?

After reading about nominations for the Office of President in local media, I am forced to ask, “Is the nomination for, and by extension, the Office of the President of Trinidad and Tobago being hijacked by political expediency?”

The Prime Minster Dr Keith Rowley supports the nomination of Ms Christine Kangaloo for President. His grounds are her experience a) as acting President before, and b) Senate President. Dr Rowley seems to have ignored all that is unseemly improper with such a nomination – and to which he cannot plead ignorance. I shall not be occupying my time setting it all out here when it is already in the public domain. Readers have the choice to be well-informed, or not.

Mr Israel Khan SC has accepted nomination for President.

The following are some well-known characteristics of Mr Khan:

1.    He has an enviable record of sound performance.

2.    He has contributed as an Independent Senator in his service to the country.

3.    Nobody owns Mr Khan’s tongue.  He is not scripted, somewhat unfiltered.

4.    He has a way with words – straight talking that cut to the heart of matters – causing most citizens to agree with him – only because what he says is so plain spoken and non-evasive.

5.    Owning his own tongue and being the boss of his own person, he has spoken out frankly, without filter and for the common man against perceived misdeeds by both political parties.

6.    He has spoken out on major scandals without fear or favour, as a lone voice in the legal and public domain. For example, he was the lone senior member of the legal fraternity, bold and with iron fortitude against the Chief Justice Archie debacle. He hung a banner from his Chambers that "All is not well on Knox Street” with options for the Chief Justice, “1) Resign now, 2) Answer S137 Tribunal, 3) Face criminal charge of misbehaviour (15 years jail)”.

7.    On the Vincent Nelson SC constitutional, civil and criminal imbroglio - he called out the ex-AG's advisers on the indemnity agreement with convicted King’s Counsel Vincent Nelson to publicly come clean on their roles in the drafting of the controversial settlement.

8.    He has demonstrated that he is a fierce and tireless fighter for what is right for the grassroots public, both in an out of court.

Basically, Mr Israel Khan will kowtow to no one. He will put ‘boof’ where warranted – within a Constitutional remit of course. You will get it plain just so - ‘not sugar coated’!  Mr Khan epitomises what the country needs at this time to get the elected on both sides of the political divide to do their jobs properly.  He will pull this Nation back from the brink of collapse.

His appeal as a President is that he would bring the lived experience of ‘the man-on-the-street struggles’ to that office. 

The PNM has an opportunity to demonstrate that tribal politics will not be allowed to hijack who gets selected for Presidency and to put the greater good of the Nation at centre stage.

The Prime Minister should take lead and without hesitation change his mind by dropping Ms Kangaloo and supporting Mr Israel Khan’s nomination. I urge Dr Rowley to do the right thing. Rise above your party and leave a legacy that aids the country.

Mr Mohan Ramcharan

Birmingham, England