Law and Justice

[Bromden]

They don't murder you for eye contact, they just harrass you and **** your day up if you look at them.

 

[Dystopian]

can you edit your first post to say "gangs that murder on eye contact" instead of "...low amount of gangs that murder you for looking at them"?

im afraid someones gonna miss the point

 

[Bromden]

I'm sure they still will be able to live full lives if I leave it like that.

 

[Dystopian]

but what happens when they come across one of these murderous gangs of rascals and they look them square in their zealous eyes, can't live a fulfilling life then.

 

隐藏

i hate myself

 

[Bromden]

You are right, everyone's eyes should be removed to prevent eye contact based hostilities.

 

[Austupaio]

>every post has been about dystopian's rant

I see why this thread dies.

 

[K-64]

This uncivilized, impolite, extremely rude european place I live at has a very low amount of gangs that murder you for looking at them.

Don't they hire them in government?

 

[Bromden]

They get in the way, annoy, harrass, bully, take away your lunch money, but they are not in the habit of killing us yet. Otherwise, yes, the government provides plenty of career opportunities for thugs.

 

[Dystopian]

bombden thats every government

 

[Bromden]

Not necessarily. For example, here between '89 and ~'93, government thugs left the people alone. It was mostly because they were afraid of people making them answer to the crimes and general police behaviour of commie times, but still, it showed that the existence of a non-thuggish police force, who actually served and protected the people and not the king, is possible.

 

[Beny]

bombden thats every government

Speak for yourself. I will criticise the British government till the cows come home, but HM Police are actually pretty good and I think most people would consider them an asset to the community.

 

[Jhessail]

That I would have to agree with.

Back in 2009, a housemate of mine was the victim of an attempted rape and an assault/battery. She was initially reluctant to file a police report and I had to convince her to do so. The local police worked very professionally - the patrol included a female PC who did the interview with her, they took photos for evidence before her bruises would fade and all in all acted courteously. Which isn't always the case in such situations. It is pretty rare for the British police to **** things up. Not saying it doesn't happen, just that it is rare and you can generally rely and trust them.

With the obvious caveat of a white female who speaks fluent English, experiences of other people might be different. Since I was always treated very nicely and friendly by American police and Finnish police as well.

 

[pentagathus]

British polis are grand but they still seem to get a fair bit of hate.

 

[Beny]

Legalise drugs and most people's reason for hating them goes away.

/slight sarcasm

 

[Austupaio]

I am pretty sure that 90% of police antipathy comes from speeding tickets, drunk and disorderly or DUI, and drug charges - in that order.

 

[Moose!]

Mine certainly does. That, and lying on the witness stand.

 

[kurczak]

What you are more or less saying is that there was no violation of the right to life of prisoners in concentration camps,

Funny you should say that, because I was going to claim exactly that as my argument. That people in concentration camps or gulags etc didn't not have any rights (or very, very few) and claiming otherwise would be ridiculous. Or that slaves, pretty much by definition being considered by law things and not persons have no rights in that particular legal system.

that a criminal with a brilliant attorney is not able to break laws,

That's something different, individuals may get away with perfect crimes or perfect contract breaches, because no legal system is perfect and modern legal systems are de facto designed to sometimes allow people to get away with things (e.g. the principle of beyond all reasonable doubt), but in aggregate and i the long run the norm needs to be enforced to be a legal norm

that each newly-issued law is a Schrodinger's law as we cannot know whether that law actually is a law until it is enforced for the first time or even until there is a sufficient case law,

I guess if I were to be really punctual and consistent I would have to cede that point, but since it obviously produces a bizarre result, I guess my defense is that a norm produced by a legal system that is otherwise known to be capable of enforcing its norms is presumed to be a real norm until proven otherwise.

or that Art. 688 of the Czech Civil Code does not constitute the right it says it constitutes. 

Yeah, it's an empty declaration.

Even if I take these claims, I absolutely don't see the point of them or what implications do you think it brings.
With all due respect to Gray, Holmes, Jerome and all the others, this conception is utterly ridiculous outside of an academic debate. Also, it is foreign to continental legal thinking.

Huh I would say this concept of law is the most prevalent outside of the academia. 99.99% of lawyers in real life cases and 100% of clients don't care about what rights or obligation exist on paper or in some platonic realm of ideas. Their only question they have is "Can you make x happen or prevent x from happening?" and that's the only thing they are willing to pay for.

And if a refugee asks himself "What can the Convention do for me, can I use it to my benefit?", the answer is "Not much and not really"

 

[Calradianın bilgesi]

The problem is that this concept of legal right is not worth caring about in this specific case. Because the main post was:
'Refugees don't have the legal right to stay, they shouldn't stay'
Which with the specified concept of right means:
'Refugees can't stay, they shouldn't stay'

This is not an argument. What is the situation of refugees right now has no normative power on what we should be done. You can construct the same argument as:
'I don't understand what's so difficult to understand for the people in concentration camps. If you don't have the legal right to live, you shouldn't live'

What we rather care about in the issue of legal rights is rather that:
'Refugees have the legal right to stay=There are legal norms that grant the refugees right to stay and these norms would be violated if refugees were allowed to stay.'
This is the type of question a judge sitting in the court about refugees is interested in. The other concept of right totally useless to them. Suppose a judge adopts your concept of legal right:
-Do refugees have the legal right to stay?
Judge: If we decide to let them stay yes they have the legal right. But if we decide to kick them out they don't have the legal right
-How will you decide?
Judge: Of course in accordance with refugees' legal rights

 

[BenKenobi]

This is what I was hinting when I said I don't get kurczak's implications. The original problem was: "Israel has this obligation under international (and domestic) law, it is not doing as it should do, ergo what they do is wrong." Rewriting it into a realist viewpoint will just move the "what they do is wrong" into some other sentence but it will not go away as kurczak hinted.

 

[rebelknight]

So those who know laws more than i do.
What happen if you accidentally find child porn?
Like on reddit or 4chan or whatever.
Is it against the law even if you didn't download it?
i'm talking about pure accident, like some **** link CP on 4chan or reddit.