Should inherited courts be held contained by confidential?


Answers:
No and doing such a thing could result in Sharia Law contained by advanced countries (which has happened contained by Canada and Britain already) and cannot be allowed in the US.
No.

The moment society gets involved in a family's affairs, society at ample has an interest in any precedents set (which could affect any relations in the land), and that justice is see to be done.

Far too many fundamental legal principles own been set aside because of the heavy hysterical pressures involved with child protection. The end result is that the innocent take punished and the guilty get bonuses.

The truth is that any legal proceedings is stressful (except for those professionally trained to profit from them), and is habitually deeply traumatic for all involved, guilty or not, fully fledged or child. They cannot be avoided by simply making it secret. Far better is to prepare any children involved properly and in the enlarge for the rigours and the exposure they must endure.

The exception is those cases where the mere suggestion of an amusement is sufficient to condemn a person before he or she have been tried and found guilty. Mud sticks, and suggestions of paedophilia are often used by women against innocent exes as a resources of getting him out of her hair. This suggestion is not something he can ever recover from, even if he is totally blameless, and he accordingly requires the protection of anonymity (but the proceedings can still be open) until something has been proved.
As others have pointed out, secret courts head inevitably to injustice.

As Christopher Booker has been pointing out for several months the UK Family Courts enjoy degraded into a cosy camaraderie between judges and social workers where anything said by social workers, however outrageous and however much it is clearly unjustified assertion or assumption, is taken as an absolute and incontestable truth. At the same time anyone arguing against such resolve is viewed with unalloyed suspicion as to their probity and intent.

It is adjectives in obedience to the statute, of course, which says that children must be 'protected' at adjectives costs, even if it results in an extremely unhappy, institutionalised, anti-social child head straight for a criminal, drug abusing future, from both actual and 'perceived' impair.

Cases SHOULD be held in private courts where merely invited advocates (not necessarily legal) and bona fide press are allowed and full reporting enabled, the only proviso anyone actual identities should not be disclosed. Only then would the public be informed as to what is in actual fact going on while the innocent are protected.
No secrets just clan business.

Someone's child support case or custody case or will business or ........... is already a confidential audible range as it should be. It is no one else's business. The court room doors are locked to outsiders.

The records of the covering are only available to those with a lawful interest, and eventually are destroyed.
In the U.S., mostly juvenile cases (part of the caseload of "family courts") are confidential, and the judge will exclude everyone except those who enjoy a legitimate interest in the covering from the courtroom. Also, the records of the case are single available to those with a legitimate interest, and eventually purged. Source(s): Virginia completely not, these secret courts are an absolute disgrace and an affront to decorum and democracy.
the excuse that it is done to protect children's identities is frankly ridiculous when you consider that it allows LA's to publish their photos in magazine for adoption.
If a court sits in secret afterwards it's hiding something.

Edit 3 thumbs down? what kind of people want confidential courts? thoughts of Hitler come to mind!


Related Questions: