We often look on laws as the safeguards of our society. And that they are: The stepping block to challenge our democracy and our freedom.

However, sometimes when you put these laws under the microscope you wonder who is really the beneficiary of them.

Let’s look on our Bail Act. The right to bail is guaranteed under our law. This is a good thing.

The presentation of a file before the court should not be an immediate jail sentence, but who really benefits from this law?

I think we can agree that far more than 99 per cent of individuals charged for criminal offences are criminals. Every one of them is entitled to bail, unless they have existing cases or represent a threat to the case in some way, shape, or form.

So, although it is a law for our protection, it really is a tool in every criminal’s tool box.

The implications when analysed practically are significant in relation to victims’ rights.

Think if you are abducted, brutalised, raped, and dehumanised by people you have never harmed. They are caught and 14 days later they are on bail for five to seven years before trial.

I understand the principle of what we hope to achieve, but what system could be this myopic that this is a reality that can’t be fixed.

Okay, you have a right to bail. I get it. But if we can’t have a trial within specific time periods then there are implications for both victim and offender.

Where do we find the balance?

My feeling is that no innocent man or woman should spend an extended time period in remand. So maybe we are at that point where a bail application should be subject to a background check — a real one.

So if you have been criminally charged before, no bail.

If you’re listed by the National Intelligence Bureau as a gang member, no bail. And that would be my starting point.

The Bail Act is only one example of logic vs right; the right to not implicate yourself in a crime.

Essentially, it’s the right to be silent. Yes, that’s the one that police officers and soldiers lost when our Parliament created the Independent Commission of Investigation (Indecom) Act.

Well, criminals still have it. Therefore if a criminal is confessing to a crime, a police officer has to warn him that he’s putting himself in trouble, using layman terms. Seems dumb, doesn’t it?

Well, it assists criminals quite a bit. They can’t even give a caution statement without their lawyer. This is big.

Think on this. All those television programmes showing American law enforcement interrogating suspects who confess cannot happen here. You can’t waive your right to legal counsel.

This is exactly the backbone of American justice and their clear-up rate.

So who does this law help? Maybe that one-in-a-thousand innocent guy?

Okay, but it causes 10,000 guilty to get free to kill 30,000 innocent men.

See what I mean about logic?

Let’s talk gun control. So the United States is divided on the issue of assault rifles. Why? Because of mass shooting.

Well, how many registered gun owners actually kill innocent people? Mathematics can’t compute that low. Yet people want to remove the right to own them. So let’s go to logic.

There are 300,000,000 guns in the United States. Would an assault rifle ban really help with mass shooting? How could it?

Even locally the Firearm Licensing Authority (FLA) pressures gun owners like ‘cow foot’.

Now I agree to any scrutiny before you grant me a licence. However, when you want to stress me out after you give me the permit I am forced to ask the question: How many registered gun owners commit crimes?

Law and logic are in conflict. The end result is we are being beaten 3,000,000 of us by 10,000 clowns.

Okay, so you give a statement to the police about a murder. The law says that as the man is charged for killing someone he must be given a copy of that statement. Why not just paint a target on my back.

This rule didn’t always exist. It came about in the 1980s after the Linton Berry murder trial.

So I get the whole fair play part, but who does this help? Only criminals.

So if we had a rule that they wouldn’t know until trial day then a lot of criminals would not get the chance to properly prepare their defence by threatening to murder the witnesses and their families. This would be a tragedy, I guess. Hmmm, hear the sarcasm?

I understand why all these rules exist. I realise they are to protect the one innocent man.

However, it is primarily almost totally helping the criminals.

I guess that is why control societies have less crime, but significantly more unhappy criminals.

I guess this is a good time to say thank God we’re free. Free to be murdered, robbed and kidnapped.

Feedback: drjasonamckay@gmail.com