It’s actually illegal here in the UK to attempt to plea bargain, did you know that?

Probably because you don’t have a formal Constitution and therefore do not have courts clogged with that whole “right to a speedy trial” issue, I’m guessing? Plea bargaining is an unfortunate way to deal with the fact that if we took every criminal case to trial, the system would grind to a halt.

Prosecutors in the US, unlike attorneys in the civil system, are tasked with upholding justice, not just with ‘winning’. So, in theory, the reason they aren’t just as happy with an acquittal is that if there was not enough evidence for a conviction, they shouldn’t have brought charges in the first place. (They’re also bound by a number of Constitution-related strictures that don’t apply to civil attorneys.)

And please don’t rely on Law and Order for your view of what the US court systems are like. I like the police procedural part of the show, but as a lawyer, the courtroom scenes make me want to throw things at the TV. (Shouting stuff like “Go back to law school, you moron!” probably isn’t real healthy either.)

However, I don’t fight with men who call themselves feminist for that reason alone. I do tend to be a bit watchful of them but likely, no more watchful than I am of any man. For me, the point is, has there been or is there a willingness to examine “self” and society for its anti-womanness and how much willingness is there to take it on? Especially, among men.

For me, that’s the point. “Among men”. I like the words pro-feminist men or feminist allies better, because I think that more clearly describes what I want - I want men to support feminists in their work and I want men to speak up among men, to be simplistic about it. I acknowledge that what I want is different from what many others think is ok.

I want also to say that I’ve not yet a man who entirely “gets it”, but then, I sometimes don’t get it either, and I’m aware that I don’t always get it with respect to some WOC and POC issues. In fact, I’ve quite seriously messed up in that regard, more than once. I learned that it was inappropriate of me to lick my wounds with the people I’d offended, insulted, harmed, or to expect them to help me do it. As if there isn’t already enough to do! Same thing for me with men - when they feel they’ve messed up, I want them to take care of it themselves or with other men.

All that said, I would have been wary of Kyle Payne from the start, even had he not committed a criminal offence against a women. I would have been wary of him till he won my trust and respect. I wouldn’t have felt warm and cosy with him just because of his apparent interests and “feminist creds”. In that regard, I don’t think pro-feminist men really have to worry that much about the effect Kyle Payne will have on the way feminists regard them. It’s not any different for me, post-Payne. It’s not impossible to gain my trust and respect, though neither is it simple or easy. And the process was infected with some of the problems brought to the fore by the Payne case long before he was even born.

I’ve gone on much too long but before I leave, I must say that I enjoy your blog - you’ve been on my blogroll almost as long as I’ve had one. If men can’t work these sometimes circuitous problems out on their own blogs, I’m not sure where the appropriate place would be. So, thanks.

‘Course, it’s easy to say that after the fact. Still, men who are vocally radical-feminist give me the screaming willies. It’s transparent cookie-seeking–if one wants to help, one should want to help just as much even without the recognition of how wonderfully! feminist! they are.

“Just wanting to add - I’m not sure why you’re bringing up L&O, but please promise me you won’t confuse entertainment with real life.”

I know the difference and no, I don’t confuse entertainment with real life. In my opinion it is great writing. more realistic (however not real life) and better entertainment than most.

My hypothesis, completely undeveloped at this time, is that the adversarial mode is down to separation of powers… But I’d have to think further on it.

Mike,

I find that interesting, as I’ve heard it applied to civil law countries (ie - most of Europe), but not the UK. Civil law countries don’t really regard legal proceedings as an “adversarial” process the way we in the US do. I’ve always seen the UK just lumped into the “common law” category, but from what you said it sounds like it might not fit that easily.

I agree with the definition and think it is perverting the course of justice. Wish it was illegal.

I once read that the key difference between our two legal systems is that in yours, prosecutors are required to win cases… Ours are tasked with making the case and presenting the evidence, and in theory, are as satisfied with seeing a just acquittal as a conviction. I suppose that you could say that the Crown is satisfied in that instance, if not its individual officers.

I’m guessing the UK doesn’t suffer from the same sorts of problems as, say, LA County, where suspects already have to give up their right to a speedy trial in order to assert their right to a jury trial.

Depends upon whether you’re Irish or not, hehehe… In all seriousness, though, I think even a Diplock court is better than internment; it’s a not very good compromise, but at least it’s a nod to justice and the rule of law. Plus, it has the advantage of criminalising terrorists and blunting their power to, well, terrify by making them no different to any other criminal. Sorry, sidetracked.

It’s different systems. We have some problems, notably with the CPS, although if you look past newspaper sensationalism there are people doing a tough job and getting it right about half the time. No laurel wreaths for them, but they’re not utterly rubbish, either.