251–260 of 449 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I believe that you likely came to the conclusion that most suited what you wanted to do.
What does that mean? I'm not exactly aiming to be tried in court any time soon.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To juries? Or to the US legal system? In an ideal world a good judge is likely better for you than a jury if the law is on your side. Unfortunately good judges are hard to pick, and elections of judges don't seem like a solution. In terms of the legal system itself, there is way too much room for power bias that needs reform. In theory the law is blind, applying to everyone equally. In practice it is executed by huma…
India had its face-palm moment when the jury acquitted a jealous husband of murder of his wife's lover and abolished jury trials soon after. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K._M._Nanavati_v._State_of_Mah... )
The guy is trivially guilty of killing somebody (enough evidence + admission) but just because somebody killed somebody doesn't mean they are guilty of any specific law (i.e. driving while intoxicated or in this case premeditated murder). You do still need to charge them for the proper law.
----
IIUC, the US gets around this problem by just trying people for multiple crimes at the same time and the jury can render verdicts on each of them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is, it isn't. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's always people enforcing them - or not. That is, however reluctantly, acknowledged when it's jury nullification. But judges get to stretch and squeeze laws all the time, all the way from nullification to the most unhinged overreach. And unlike juries, they get to pretend they didn't. And in an SC judge's case, it takes a constitutional crisis to overrule them.…
Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process. And if elected lawmakers produce a clear and unambiguous law with a manifestly unjust outcome, to get that fixed society should turn to lawmakers rather than judges.
Or they first arrive conclusion/decision they want for a particular case or topic, and then rationalize their decision (perhaps ignoring precedent) when they write their brief.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What does that mean? I'm not exactly aiming to be tried in court any time soon.
I think you decided that you didn't want to do jury duty before you decided that trying to get out of jury duty is some moral obligation.
But also, even if I did it the way you say - does that....make the reasoning any less powerful in your mind?
For instance, I decided I don't want to smoke long before I was mature enough to formulate an argument why smoking is bad for an individual and for the society and before I could see how the tabbaco industry is spending heavily on getting people to smoke.
Is the fact that I decided I don't want to smoke at the age of 15 making the argument I can finely flesh out decades later less powerful in your opinion? Or are you just using it as a logical instrument to undermine what I'm saying based not on a logical point but rather an emotional one?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no alternative to selective enforcement, nor has there ever been.
How about we start with not making stuff illegal that we don't want to enforce?
Speeding laws are good when the stop that guy from endangering my kids. Or when they generate revenue from tourists.
Those same laws are awful when they inconvenience me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no alternative to selective enforcement, nor has there ever been.
How about we start with not making stuff illegal that we don't want to enforce?
Weed is a category B drug in the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_in_the_United_Kingdom
This means "with penalties for unlicenced dealing, unlicenced production and unlicenced trafficking of up to 14 years in prison, an unlimited fine, or both. The maximum penalty for possession of cannabis is five years in prison and an unlimited fine."
The police absolutely try to enforce this: "In the survey-year ending March 2014, possession of cannabis offences accounted for 67% of all police recorded drug offences in the UK."
Despite this, "In 2017, 7.2% of 16 to 59-year-olds reported using cannabis in the last year, making it the most commonly used illegal drug in the United Kingdom."
If this law, all by itself, was perfectly enforced, the UK would bankrupt itself just on the extra spending in the prison system.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My point is, it isn't. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's always people enforcing them - or not. That is, however reluctantly, acknowledged when it's jury nullification. But judges get to stretch and squeeze laws all the time, all the way from nullification to the most unhinged overreach. And unlike juries, they get to pretend they didn't. And in an SC judge's case, it takes a constitutional crisis to overrule them.…
Some people would say that when a judge has to "stretch and squeeze" a law it's a failing of the lawmaking process. And if elected lawmakers produce a clear and unambiguous law with a manifestly unjust outcome, to get that fixed society should turn to lawmakers rather than judges.
And sure, in an ideal world things would get fixed in the legislative branch. But can you blame anyone for going where so much of actual power is?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But laws can be unjust. I think the quote is simply accurate.
My point is, it isn't. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's always people enforcing them - or not. That is, however reluctantly, acknowledged when it's jury nullification. But judges get to stretch and squeeze laws all the time, all the way from nullification to the most unhinged overreach. And unlike juries, they get to pretend they didn't. And in an SC judge's case, it takes a constitutional crisis to overrule them.…
So I imagine some victims for example may not feel that a minor fine/warning is 'Justice' they can't argue that it was decided by the law ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But laws can be unjust. I think the quote is simply accurate.
My point is, it isn't. Laws don't enforce themselves. It's always people enforcing them - or not. That is, however reluctantly, acknowledged when it's jury nullification. But judges get to stretch and squeeze laws all the time, all the way from nullification to the most unhinged overreach. And unlike juries, they get to pretend they didn't. And in an SC judge's case, it takes a constitutional crisis to overrule them.…
The application of law to promote justice is the role of the prosecutor - and that is the part that is most frequently broken.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only quote from him that I know by heart: "This is a court of law, young man, not a court of justice."
That is a fantastic quote. I had to read up on it. So, from my very limited understanding, the point is kinda like you have to pass the legal steps before you have a chance at getting justice. Rules of evidence, Miranda warnings, whatever. I think it's sorta like you have to pass the compiler before you get a chance at a working program. Now, I'm going to strain this analogy, what do you do when there's a bug in the…