Rock God X wrote:
That's an odd one. Do judges never make mistakes? I'm not saying that the attack was racially motivated, and I accept that the judge had access to a lot more information than you or I, but to say the judge must be believed is just wrong. Perhaps if he had stated explicitly why he thought it wasn't (maybe he did and it wasn't reported), we could be a bit more confident either way.
Oh, and, I was only answering your question as to who said the attack wasn't racially motivated.
The judge
must be believed because thats all we have, he/she has heard
all of the evidence, will certainly have years worth of experience in the law (decades worth probably), and is appointed as worthy to judge such things.
If he/she has made a mistake then there is also a procedure to re-judge what he/she has done or said and reach the same, or a different conclusion, nothing that they state is set in stone - its the system that we have and generally speaking its a bloody good one.
I certainly wouldn't hand over the justice system to newspaper editors.
Back of the net!
