Tuesday, February 8, 2011
To make a prediction you can look like total idiot if you are wrong. However knowing that this blog is only read by my friends I will take that chance to act upon my instinct that is not in accordance of my better judgment..
The team that is most likely to wear the crown of the champions after this tournament is team India. The reasons are pretty obvious. Every pundits say so. With home ground advantage they can influence the pitch condition to better suit their batters and bowlers. They will also have the crowed support that will boost confidence and release adrenaline. :) However India are not the only country that are hosting the ICC World Championship. Sri Lanka and Bangladesh are also co host.
Bangladesh are no longer the team that any second division side will take to the driers. They have wins over all the test playing nation. A white wash against New Zealand and series win over West Indies.
Bangladesh are a dark horse that could walk away with the trophy given plenty of luck. But lets face it no ones that lucky.
Sri Lanka they say no host nation has won the cricket world cup at home. Sri Lanka have co-hosted the competition in 1996 together with Pakistan and India. They beat Australia and were champions. The last world cup remember they should have won if weather did not for bad weather, or bad light.
Sri Lanka will be very difficult to beat in the sub continent and can come out as winners.
Australia they may not be the NO 1 test side. They may not be able to defend a score of over 400 but they are champions three times in a row. They are no walk over. The series against England they won emphatically. The is the question of Mr Cricket Michael Hussey,. Without a quality spinner they will not find it easy to cope with the pitch conditions.
Than the is the Pakistan. The problem with Pakistan is that you really do not know what they are going to do. They can pour both hot and cold water and some times even both.
England are a much improved side. They have never won the world cup and have had good form until they played Australia .
I really do not see west Indies as a contender .
Now lets talk about a team I really love to win. They have never won the world cup. Yet they have won most of their matchers they played. Can the champions of chocking lift the cup. I do not see it happening. If you haven't guessed who I am talking about it team South Africa.< the Proteas Smith And the boys. What ever you may prefer. I Do not see Proteas winning for the following reasons. South Africa have always had good if not great lower order batters. This time they do not have that luxury. Smith and De Villiers have no form in the series against India. If one see how the middle and lower order crumbled after the top order was dismissed. Morkal who relays on bounce will not get any on dust pitchers of sub contendaent. Wayne Parnell lost redym. However they have a gifted spinner that make his début. Even though I do not agree with the team selection I think if they keep their cool, Stop chocking they will be difficult to beat.
India with the best opening pair. Best batting line up. Great spinner in Harbhajan Singh Good opening bowler In Khan. The only thing they need is some one to support Khan as opening bowler. If I have to put money this will be the horse I bet on.
From one to ten this is how i rate each teams chances of winning. 10 being most likely and 1 less likely.
Sri Lanka 7
South Africa 6
New Zealand 5.5
West Indies 5
Friday, December 3, 2010
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
engulfed in pain
surround my mortal creatures
that await my faith in vain,
Tears of grief fill the air
at the sigh of my vessel that
hangs on to my soul for dear
For years I have abused this vessel
with worldly toxins that have given me pointless
She has finial broken down yet her
faith for me
refuses to part the soul that she knows
from my conception.
I hear the angle of death on my door steps
to escort me to
my finial destiny Be it heaven or hell his
here to take me.
The is no expression of satisfaction or grief
on his stern face.
All pain suddenly subsides
Screams of loss and despair echos in the room.
Their vessels are comforted by the vessels
that stands besides them.
I star at my lifeless body.
Im helpless, ALONE.
The room filled with people that once were
part of my life< a life that exist no more.
IM suddenly engulfed in collideoscope of colour,
were im merely a spec of light.
I enter carnal now the is no return
Im rapidly sucked into its vacuum and have no control of my spiral movement.
IM here finial HOME.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
The IPL has spiced the event even more. Not only did it great instant millionaires but also has generated a whole new generation of cricket lovers. More than forty percent of people who went to the IPL match that was held In South Africa have never been before to a live cricket match before.
No one can say they have mastered the trickeries of 20/20 cricket. Last year the team that finish last in the IPL became the new champions
Than Netherlands beat England in the opening match of the second world cup .
And remember the might aussie team. The ones that played with ruthless aggression and flawless technique. They out off the first round. Well can't blame them they found them selves the ultimate group of death.
What can we say about this version of cricket thats tasking the world by storm.
Is the any technique to play it or should it be played without any skills. Skills that take years to master that could only be disposed in the longer versions of the game. I think the most successful maestros utilise their skills innervate new techniques. If you watch South Africa Vs Scotland you would have seen this at work. All shorts played were normal conventional cricket strokes. Nothing agricultural. Watch players like Yuvraj Singh arguably the most prolific batter and see that he uses 100% of cricket shorts that he adapted for aggressive stroke play.
I think the game is still in developing stages. Its a great way to get more countries to start playing this beautiful sport and learn together.
What I would like to see in this version. Funny!!.
It would be wonderful to see two innings per side. The first team bats 10 overs than the other team bats and the team that batted first comes and have other bat. You get the picture.
Sunday, April 26, 2009
A simple word! Yet not easily implemented? It is essential for the judiciary to be independent from legislative and executive powers. The courts should never be subjected to any influence from government. The courts must dispense weather civil ,criminal or administrative accordance with rules of law.
If the judiciary fails in its quest to administrate, justice effectively and impartially than civil anarchy will eventually result in the justice systems. People will have no confidence in the rule of law.
This will bring about kangaroo court ,giving rise to vigilantes seeking retributive justice.
The are many theories on the purpose of punishment in criminal justice systems. The theories can be place in three broad categories.
2) The relative theory
3) The unitary theory
1)The the absolute theory:
a: Retributive theory
2)The relative theory
b: Deterrence b1)individual deterrence
c: Reformative theory
3)Unitary theory: it will be foolish if the courts choose one of the above theories as being corrected one. All the above theories has a certain degree of effect, but if applied unilaterally show some of their deficiencies. Therefore the courts should not reject any one of the theories or accept only one to the exclusion of all others. The combination of all the theories is called the unitary theory.
I am positive that you have had the experience were you said to yourself the the is no justice in your country because you read in the paper how some criminal evaded the claws of justice.
So I am going to try and explain criminal law to you as simply as I can. Bear in mind this is not an academic paper.
Before even considering punishment it has to be determined if criminal liability is present. Criminal liability is based on:
1)Compliance with the principles of legality
2)Complies with the general elements of crime.
1)Compliance with principles of legality
a: ius acceptum : conduct must be recognised or proscribed by statuary or common law.
b: ius praevium : punishment must exist before the act was committed
c: ius certum :crime must not be formulated vaguely or unclearly
d: ius strictum :court must interpret criminal provision narrowly rather than broadly
e: nulla poena : Nulla poena sine lege no penality without statutory provision or legal rule.
2)General elements of crime
A: Conduct (voluntary act or ommission)
B: Compliance with the definition of proscription
b1: formally defined the description set up by the law for liability for a
specific type of crime.
b2: materially defined proscription which requires causation:
b2a: Factual causation (conditio sine qua non)
In order to determine the act is the factual cause
of the prohibited situation all the relevant facts and circumstances must be investigated. It has to be determined by ones knowledge and experience that the prohibited circumstances is a result that flows from the accused act or omission. A simple illustration to show you the application of this theory . X assaults Y and injuries him so badly that he requires surgery. Y dies during the operation. Therefore X conduct is the sine qua non for Y death. If you take away his act the situation will not disappear. However lets say X gives Y poison, the poison that he gives Y takes a long time to work. Before it can work Y has a heart attack owing to natural causes and dies. In this cause X conduct is not the conditio sine qua non of Y death.
The mere fact that conditio sine qua non is present does not mean that a court of law may find that is a causal link between the act and result. The court must prove that not only a factual cause of the prohibited result exists but a that the is a legal cause of the situation.
The are a number of criteria formulated to determine legal causation.
1.The individualisation theory
2.The theory of adequate causation
3.Novus actus inverveniens
4.The foreseeability theory
5.The doctrine of common purpose.
6.Causation by omision
What is the purpose of legal causation.
Well remember X injured Y who need surgery and died as a result. But what if X died as a result of negligence by the Dr Z rather than by the attack by X. If X had not injured Y he will not need surgery and therefore DR Z would not have operated him and he would still be alive. Now factual conditio sine qua non is present. However the is no legal causation therefore X can not be held liable for Y death. He will be liable for assault.
You may be inclined to think that once the two above elements are met nothing else is required. But No! The are two more elements that have to be fulfilled before someone can be held liable and convicted. The next set is to determine weather the act which complies with the definition of proscription is not necessary unlawful.
Take the following example:
X stabs Y and kills him. X act committed the act and the act certainly complies with the definition of proscription. However at this stage the conduct can only be described provisionally or prima facie as unlawful. The state must establish that the are no grounds for justification of X conduct. If Y attack X and X stab him in private defence (self defence) than X conduct is not unlawfull.
Here are some of the grounds for justification
4)Obedience to orders
a) Criminal capacity
b) Forms of culpability.
a) Criminal capacity
The offender must have the ability to appreciate the wrongfulness of his/her conduct
and he/she must have the capacity to act in accordance with the appreciation of the wrongfulness of his/her conduct.
b) Forms of culpably
i)Intention the person must have the intention to commit the prohibited act.
The are three forms of intention
a)Dolus directus Direct intention
X stabs Y with knife with intention to kill him.
b)Dolus indirectus Indirect intention.
Prohibited act is not X main goal ex. X is sitting inside his neighbour Y house. From inside his house he wants to shoot a bird on the outside. He realises that by shooting the bird he will brake the window pane . The violation here consists in the fact that X knowing that he will bring that prohibited goes ahead anyway.
Ex: X wants to burn a building. He foresee the possibility that Y may be inside but never the less proceeds with his plan, and sets fire to the building. Y is indeed inside and burns to death. In the eyes of the law X intentionally caused Y death.
It is not only acts committed intentional that are punishable. Some times the law punishes acts that are committed unintentionally. the so called calpa acts. this happens when X fails to exercise the care required in the circumstances. Or where he shouls foresee a particular result or circumstances and guard against it, but fails to do so.
This entire blog is only on criminal law and is as basic as it can be. It does not even scratch the topic of criminal procedure.
You may ask yourself is it designed to protect criminals. The answer is a big fat NO.
It is there to protect the interests of society from the abuse of power instilled on the police and criminal courts. All person are innocent until they have been proven guilty in a court of law.