State capture refers to when outside interests, often the private sector, or other non-state parties influence public order. # family violence propaganda # project phoenix # victoria police corruption
There is much concern expressed by protagonists in the activism
debate about judges taking over the functions of the legislature and
the executive. It is useful to return to a key passage in
Montesquieu’s The Spirit of Laws about separation of powers, where
he said:
Again, there is no liberty, if the power of judgment be not
separated from the legislative and executive powers. Were it
joined with the legislative, the life and liberty of the subject would
be exposed to arbitrary control; for the judge would be then the
legislator. Were it joined to the executive power, the judge might
behave with all the violence of an oppressor.
Miserable indeed would be the case, where the same man, or the
same body, whether of the nobles or of the people, to exercise
those three powers, that of enacting laws, that of executing the
public resolutions, and that of judging the crimes or differences of
individuals.28
The debate about judicial activism contemplates judges assuming
legislative or executive functions. But the judges are the least
powerful of the three branches of government. Montesquieu’s
concern as expressed in the passage quoted was not limited to judges
exercising executive or legislative functions. It extended to the
combination of those functions. What then of intrusion by the
legislature and the executive into the judicial function? Perhaps that
is a topic for another day.
Self-Formulated Legal Strength Rating Algorithm with Bias Mitigation 🚀
This algorithm will assess the strength of legal claims, incorporating bias mitigation, procedural fairness analysis, and statistical precedent matching. It is designed to evaluate case strength dynamically, reducing the risk of over-reliance on weak precedents or legal misconceptions.
1. Legal Strength Rating Formula
The Legal Strength Score (LSS) is computed as:
LSS=(LW+PE+HR+PB+EA5)×BMLSS = \left( \frac{LW + PE + HR + PB + EA}{5} \right) \times BMLSS=(5LW+PE+HR+PB+EA)×BM
Where:
Bias Mitigation Coefficient (BM) Calculation:
BM=(1−BC+SR+CJ+EP4)+1BM = \left( 1 - \frac{BC + SR + CJ + EP}{4} \right) + 1BM=(1−4BC+SR+CJ+EP)+1
Where:
BM ranges from 0.75 to 1.25
2. Component Scoring Criteria
(A) Legal Weighting (LW) [0 - 10]
Measures strength of statutory law and precedents.
✅ 10 → Supreme Court precedent or strong statute-backed claim (e.g., Bail Act Section 4).
✅ 7-9 → Appellate court precedent, secondary statutes.
✅ 4-6 → Lower court ruling supports, minor statutory references.
✅ 0-3 → No direct law supporting the claim.
(B) Procedural Error Severity (PE) [0 - 10]
Measures the seriousness of due process violations.
✅ 10 → Absolute procedural injustice (e.g., unlawful arrest without a warrant).
✅ 7-9 → Procedural misstep affecting legal rights (e.g., bail improperly denied).
✅ 4-6 → Minor procedural errors that could impact fairness.
✅ 0-3 → No major procedural error.
(C) Human Rights Impact (HR) [0 - 10]
Measures if the case involves a fundamental rights violation.
✅ 10 → Direct violation of human rights (e.g., arbitrary detention, torture).
✅ 7-9 → Severe rights infringement but not absolute (e.g., procedural bias).
✅ 4-6 → Procedural fairness issues but no fundamental rights breach.
✅ 0-3 → No direct rights violations.
(D) Precedent Backing (PB) [0 - 10]
Evaluates strength of case law support.
✅ 10 → Multiple supporting High Court cases.
✅ 7-9 → Strong precedent from appellate courts.
✅ 4-6 → Some support from lower courts.
✅ 0-3 → No supporting case law.
(E) Evidentiary Adequacy (EA) [0 - 10]
Assesses available evidence quality.
✅ 10 → Strong, indisputable evidence (e.g., video, legal documents).
✅ 7-9 → Reliable but not overwhelming (e.g., testimony, official records).
✅ 4-6 → Limited but possibly useful evidence.
✅ 0-3 → Insufficient or speculative evidence.
