NationStates Jolt Archive

Which do you prefer?

Common Law is the system found in England and its spawn (including America). It can be applied based solely on what the judiciary thinks is right, and that decision becomes law both retroactively and going forward.

The Civil Law system is found most famously in France and Japan, and is based on legislated statute only. The judiciary has very limited power to disagree with statute.

* yes, I realise I've offered a very simplistic view of their differences

Common Law FTW.

Why?

I can't imagine preferring a system where you can't tell what the law is until the judge tells you after the fact.

Why?

I can't imagine preferring a system where you can't tell what the law is until the judge tells you after the fact.

you can argue on precedent.

Common Law is the system found in England and its spawn (including America). It can be applied based solely on what the judiciary thinks is right, and that decision becomes law both retroactively and going forward.

Bolded part quite wrong. Ex post facto law is quite unconstitutional.

Why?

I can't imagine preferring a system where you can't tell what the law is until the judge tells you after the fact.

The majority of common law can be overridden by statute. However, common law as it applies to constitutional law can only be overridden by constitutional amendment. It's a question of degrees of magnitude.

Why?

I can't imagine preferring a system where you can't tell what the law is until the judge tells you after the fact.

Again, you show how little you understand about the system of laws in your country.

You also have a ridiculous belief that the civil law system is free from judicial wrangling. Visit Quebec.

Which do you prefer?

Common Law is the system found in England and its spawn (including America). It can be applied based solely on what the judiciary thinks is right, and that decision becomes law both retroactively and going forward.

The Civil Law system is found most famously in France and Japan, and is based on legislated statute only. The judiciary has very limited power to disagree with statute.

* yes, I realise I've offered a very simplistic view of their differences

By the way, the law system in the state of Louisiana is based on Nepolianic law which is the basis of French law. It has some very screwed up laws. For example, as the only boy in the family I could have taken 1/2 of what my mother and father owned when my father died. My two sisters and I had to sign a waiver when dad died so mom could get the rights to everyting they owned.

That problem has been corrected since dad died in 1988.

Why?

I can't imagine preferring a system where you can't tell what the law is until the judge tells you after the fact.

because even in a civil law system judges are still called on to interpret the law? So in effect the differences are not nearly as stark as you make them..

Bolded part quite wrong. Ex post facto law is quite unconstitutional.

The US constitution prohibits congressional ex post facto law only. Not judicial.

Every example of the judiciary reading into the law is ex post facto law. If they fail to apply the law as written, or apply an unwritten law, that's ex post facto law.

because even in a civil law system judges are still called on to interpret the law? So in effect the differences are not nearly as stark as you make them..
But the scope of their decisions is much narrower.

Civil law judges decide on fine points of law - does the law actually prhobit this behaviour. Common law judges can make decisions based on whether this case contributes to a coherent set (partly unwritten) of legal principles.

you can argue on precedent.
You can also argue on principle. And that's the problem.

The US constitution prohibits congressional ex post facto law only. Not judicial.

Every example of the judiciary reading into the law is ex post facto law. If they fail to apply the law as written, or apply an unwritten law, that's ex post facto law.

Um....no. That's not what ex post facto laws mean at all. In fact it's so far from the definitin I question whether you have any fundamental understanding of the law at all.

An ex post facto law is a law which makes certain conduct illegal, and applies punishment for those who have committed the act prior to the law making it illegal.

The role of a judge is to offer interpretation. Either interpretation of the written law, or an interpretation of the unwritten law. In either case, in each instant the judge applies his or her interpretation, bound by precident.

Those decisions are never, in the slightest, retroactively applied. At all.

Ever.

Really, do you actually...you know, know anything about the law?

The US constitution prohibits congressional ex post facto law only. Not judicial.

Every example of the judiciary reading into the law is ex post facto law. If they fail to apply the law as written, or apply an unwritten law, that's ex post facto law.

This is embarrasing Llewdor. I see you didn't take my advice and at least get a little educated on the subject before you started in on this again.

Again, you show how little you understand about the system of laws in your country.
The laws of my country are not understandable.

Remember Robert Latimer? There should have been no doubt that he was going to be convicted of murdering his daughter. There should have been no doubt as to what punishment he would face.

In that case, the court did decide correctly (he murdered his daughter and he admitted it, so he was convicted), but there was tremendous uncertainty surrounding that outcome. And there should not have been.
You also have a ridiculous belief that the civil law system is free from judicial wrangling. Visit Quebec.
Quebec is a very strange mix of legal systems. Canadian federal law applies. Supreme Court of Canada precedents apply. That's not how a civil law system is supposed to work.

I would point to the Japanese system as a purer example.

However, common law as it applies to constitutional law

There is no such thing as "common law as it applies to constitutional law".

The constitution is a statute. It is a written law. Interpretations of the constitution are interpretations of written law, and thus is inerently a civil law system.

But the scope of their decisions is much narrower.

Civil law judges decide on fine points of law - does the law actually prhobit this behaviour. Common law judges can make decisions based on whether this case contributes to a coherent set (partly unwritten) of legal principles.

Those same legal principles apply equally to the interpretation of the written law in question. Really that's a bullshit argument. If you think the "scope of the decisions" of a civil law system are typically narrow, just take a look at american constitutional law.

Um....no. That's not what ex post facto laws mean at all. In fact it's so far from the definitin I question whether you have any fundamental understanding of the law at all.

An ex post facto law is a law which makes certain conduct illegal, and applies punishment for those who have committed the act prior to the law making it illegal.

The role of a judge is to offer interpretation. Either interpretation of the written law, or an interpretation of the unwritten law. In either case, in each instant the judge applies his or her interpretation, bound by precident.

Those decisions are never, in the slightest, retroactively applied. At all.
That could only ever be true if the decision was made before the act took place.

That could only ever be true if the decision was made before the act took place.

no.....because the law already existed, in either system. The court case merely applies the interpretation of the law.

Judges in common law systems don't CREATE the law with their rulins. They rule on an interpretation of a law that, in their opinion, exists IN THE FIRST PLACE.

That's the difference, and one you just don't seem to get.

really, try to understand the law before you argue it.

Sometimes I wonder if Llewdor wouldn't be happier being governed and judged by a powerful computer that simply interprets commands entered into it by politicians.

No silly human notions to complicate things.

(Raises hand for 'Common Law'.)

An ex post facto law is a law which makes certain conduct illegal, and applies punishment for those who have committed the act prior to the law making it illegal.
Just like Riggs v. Palmer did.

Why?

I can't imagine preferring a system where you can't tell what the law is until the judge tells you after the fact....

*shakes head*

...

*leaves thread*

Sometimes I wonder if Llewdor wouldn't be happier being governed and judged by a powerful computer that simply interprets commands entered into it by politicians.
Yes, Llewdor would.

Yes, Llewdor would.

I knew it!

*starts building robotic likeness of mikesburg*

Common law, based upon inexorable principles of human action, is the way to go. Civil law, dependent as it is on the leviathan state, has no place in human affairs.

Just like Riggs v. Palmer did.

No. Riggs v. Palmer was a judicial opinion on existing common law.

Get it? Existing common law. Common law that had already existed. Seriously, if you're too thick to understand that, I'd stay away from legal arguments. You lack the sophistication.

And the required number of brain cells.

Yes, Llewdor would.

and thus your opinions are stupid and not worth my attention.

Hahahahhaha, seems to be that way yes. Think he's envisoning a system of law based on Vulcan philosophy?

An older Star Trek episode seems to jump out at me, yes. There will be some distant Llewdor civilization that's going to crumble when their supercomputer breaks down.

(Complete with Time Warps...)

The laws of my country are not understandable.

Remember Robert Latimer? There should have been no doubt that he was going to be convicted of murdering his daughter. There should have been no doubt as to what punishment he would face.

In that case, the court did decide correctly (he murdered his daughter and he admitted it, so he was convicted), but there was tremendous uncertainty surrounding that outcome. And there should not have been.

The law can not be so inflexible that it violates the principles of fundamental justice. That does not mean the law is unknowable. You are wrong...the laws of our country are perfectly understandable. You are quibbling on the outcomes. Yet, the outcomes are no more set in stone in civil law jurisdictions.

Think of contract law. You can say, 'ok, only what is written in the contract matters, and the terms shall be defined in one way only'.

You are STILL going to have contract disputes.

Go ahead, write up how you'll deal with fraud. How you'll deal with this, and that, and every possibility under the sun, and there will STILL be issues that judges will have to interpret. No civil code in existence has all the bases covered. And having everything written out in a civil code does not mean you, the average citizen, are going to be able to understand the law any better than you do now.

Which is atrociously, by the way.

Sometimes I wonder if Llewdor wouldn't be happier being governed and judged by a powerful computer that simply interprets commands entered into it by politicians.

No silly human notions to complicate things.



Hahahahhaha, seems to be that way yes. Think he's envisoning a system of law based on Vulcan philosophy?

The law can not be so inflexible that it violates the principles of fundamental justice.
Justice is not a necessary component of the law. I note that you chose not to take part in that thread.
That does not mean the law is unknowable. You are wrong...the laws of our country are perfectly understandable. You are quibbling on the outcomes.
If it matters, measure it.
Go ahead, write up how you'll deal with fraud.
It should be in the contract. If it isn't, then the contract doesn't consider fraud relevant.
No civil code in existence has all the bases covered.
It doesn't have to. If a case comes along the civil code doesn't govern, the civil code should take no action. Chalk that one up to experience, maybe write a new law to cover it in future cases, and move on. But nothing that happens before the decision is made should ever be governed by that decision.

Because otherwise I can't have known in advance. You can't credibly argue that I should have known something in advance unless you can demonstrate how I would have learned it, and common law fails utterly to do that.
And having everything written out in a civil code does not mean you, the average citizen, are going to be able to understand the law any better than you do now.
Sure it does. It would be like learning the rules of a very complex game, but the rules wouldn't ever bend.

Would that make the system unjust according to some people some of the time? Probably, but that's a price I'm willing to pay for certainty.

Just like Riggs v. Palmer did.

Hahahahaha, I was actually waiting for you to bring this up again.

I'll cut and paste (for the benefit of everyone else) how I dealt with you on this before:

In 1889, the Court of Appeals of New York ruled in a way that ran directly contrary to the text of the relevant statute. In Riggs v. Palmer, the court rules that Elmer Palmer was not allowed to receive inheritance from his dead grandfather, even though his grandfather had willed him the estate, and the statute governing the will allowed for no exceptions under which the will of the deceased was not executed as the deceased wished. And yet the court ruled that Elmer was not entitled to his inheritance, even though there was not a single piece of law that supported this position.

Courts make mistakes.

Actually, the court got it exactly right. There may have been no relevant statute dealing with benefiting from the commission of a crime (you forgot to mention that Elmer murdered his grandfather because he was worried the old man might change his will and cut him out), but such prohibitions exist in equity. You kill me for the money in my pocket. Should you be allowed to profit from your crime, and keep that money as you do your sentence? No.

Yes, courts make mistakes, but you picked a piss poor case to prove it (no offense). Again, and with all due respect...you really don't know what you're talking about. Wills, as an example, are not absolute. A private citizen has enormous latitude to dispose of his or her estate as desired, but there ARE restrictions, in statute, and in common law. For example, no matter how much you want to, you don't get to write a will that says, "To my son, in the hopes that he stops dressing in women's clothing." with no explicit direction as to what would happen (would the estate revert? Be gifted over?) if your precatory term is not respected. So your son can prance around in women's clothing forever, and still retain your estate after your death. I'm not going to go into the tonne of examples I have been busting my head over all day...but suffice it to say, as in contract law, wills is not an area you are going to successfully argue is straight forward and 'all about what is written'. Statute AND common law govern wills, and again...the courts in the example you gave made exactly the correct choice.


You want to claim that it was not illegal to benefit from committing a crime. And I pointed out (I'll get the link in a second) that it had in fact been illegal since the 14th century.

Edit: linky

Wrong. It has existed at English common law and at equity since the 14th century (http://www.unafei.or.jp/english/pdf/PDF_rms/no67/14_Calvert-smith_p173-p188.pdf). (beginning at first of course with forfeiture of lands if convicted of treason, and extending from there)

Justice is not a necessary component of the law.

Thankfully, neither Llwedor or the Llewdorcomputer are making the law.

Justice is not a necessary component of the law.

Oh...my...fucking...god.

You are an idiot.

You can't credibly argue that I should have known something in advance unless you can demonstrate how I would have learned it, and common law fails utterly to do that.


It does that just fine. Why? Because common law is only common law because it's generally universally understood in the society. That's what common law means. You seem to think that "common law" means that the judge thinks it's a good idea.

That is not only ignorance, but sheer stupidity.

Would that make the system unjust according to some people some of the time? Probably, but that's a price I'm willing to pay

Fortunatly then you don't have the authority to make that choice, and, based on your total inability to understand even basic legal principles, never will.

Hahahahaha, I was actually waiting for you to bring this up again.

I'll cut and paste (for the benefit of everyone else) how I dealt with you on this before:
Elmer was entitled to that inheritance. By taking it from him, the court retroactively added to the punishment for the murder of his grandfather.

That's grossly unfair. Why did Elmer have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in penalties that other murderers didn't?

And your section on the nature of wills yet again fails to be relevant. If Elmer hadn't killed his grandfather, the will would have been perfectly legal. Nothing about the will failed to comply with the law. Elmer's grandfather didn't write an uninterpretable will.

Oh...my...fucking...god.

You are an idiot.
How can it be? We can't even agree on what justice is.

I invite you to define the term.
It does that just fine. Why? Because common law is only common law because it's generally universally understood in the society. That's what common law means. You seem to think that "common law" means that the judge thinks it's a good idea.
It amounts to the same thing. What's generally acceptable isn't any more knowable.
Fortunatly then you don't have the authority to make that choice, and, based on your total inability to understand even basic legal principles, never will.
For a time I had wanted to be a judge. As such, I worked in politics, because Canadian judges are political appointees. It was a sound plan. I even qualified for law school (I'm very good at 2/3 of the LSAT - reading comprehension always screwed me up because the passages were insufficiently precise to have literal meaning).

Elmer was entitled to that inheritance.

No, he was not. Why not? Because society determined he as not, and the judge applied the rule of society.

By taking it from him, the court retroactively added to the punishment for the murder of his grandfather.

nothing retroactive at all. That punishment was always there, society decided it should be there.

That's grossly unfair. Why did Elmer have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in penalties that other murderers didn't?

They pay the exact same penalty. The penalty is they receive no profit from their crime. Mere circumtances dictate he was entitled to inherit more than others.

Just as mere circumstances dictate tat one murder serves 30 years of his life sentence before dying in jail while the other serves one day then dies. Why did the first prisoner serve 30 years more than the other?

Mere circumstances, out of the control, and thus out of the concern of the court. The court did not put Elmer in the position of potentially inheriting thousands, hey simply enforced the societal rule tat he will not benefit from his crime.

Elmer hadn't killed his grandfather, the will would have been perfectly legal.

But he did. If Timothy McVeigh didn't blow up the federal building then killing him would have not been legal. But he did, so it was.

It doesn't have to. If a case comes along the civil code doesn't govern, the civil code should take no action. Chalk that one up to experience, maybe write a new law to cover it in future cases, and move on. But nothing that happens before the decision is made should ever be governed by that decision.

This is precisely why common law came about in the first place. Sometimes, it is better to choose someone to arbitrate and make the final decision when there are no set rules decided by a body politic. That decision becomes precedence and the founding of a legal system.

Situations often require human insight, something which politics often lacks (and thus carries over into civil law.)

You want to claim that it was not illegal to benefit from committing a crime. And I pointed out (I'll get the link in a second) that it had in fact been illegal since the 14th century.
I think it's a stretch to argue that Elmer did benefit unduly from the crime. The will was already written, and it's not like his grandfather was unaware that murders occur.

It amounts to the same thing. What's generally acceptable isn't any more knowable.

No, it doesn't. Not even the slightest. If the law was vague, and generally unknown it would not, by definition, be common law. That's what common law MEANS.

The fact that you can not grasp this simple concept demonstrates your complete inability to discuss topics of this nature.

For a time I had wanted to be a judge. As such, I worked in politics, because Canadian judges are political appointees.

I like canada, respect their government. As such, I am quite glad your particular ambitions have shifted.

They tend to like judges who, you know, understand the law.

I even qualified for law school

If you haven't been to law school what makes you think you're even remotely qualified to discuss law?

Took a few legal philosophy classes and think you know something? I took those too. I also took biology, I don't discuss how to perform surgery.

Elmer was entitled to that inheritance. By taking it from him, the court retroactively added to the punishment for the murder of his grandfather.

That's grossly unfair. Why did Elmer have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in penalties that other murderers didn't?

And your section on the nature of wills yet again fails to be relevant. If Elmer hadn't killed his grandfather, the will would have been perfectly legal. Nothing about the will failed to comply with the law. Elmer's grandfather didn't write an uninterpretable will.The point of my examples was:

1) There are restrictions on wills, both in common law and statute
2) Common law says you don't get to benefit from the proceeds of a crime
3) The will was unexectuable because of the actions of the beneficiary
4) That's the law baby.

The point of my examples was:

1) There are restrictions on wills, both in common law and statute
2) Common law says you don't get to benefit from the proceeds of a crime
3) The will was unexectuable because of the actions of the beneficiary
4) That's the law baby.
It's #3 where Riggs v. Palmer breaks down. Why was the will unexecutable?

And again, the dissenting judge agreed with me. He thought that the incorrect legal principle on which to base the decision.

But more importantly, if one judge could dissent, why not a majority? How predictable is the law if even the judiciary doesn't agree on proper outcomes?

How sweet. You qualified for law school.

Hey, if I qualified for Med school, could I pretend I know enough to pracitce medicine?
Wow you're lousy at deduction. I never claimed that meant I had relevant knowledge.

I was simply illustrating my planned (at the time) path to the judiciary.

For a time I had wanted to be a judge. As such, I worked in politics, because Canadian judges are political appointees. It was a sound plan. I even qualified for law school (I'm very good at 2/3 of the LSAT - reading comprehension always screwed me up because the passages were insufficiently precise to have literal meaning).

How sweet. You qualified for law school.

Hey, if I qualified for Med school, could I pretend I know enough to pracitce medicine?

No.

You know jack shit about the law, and it's glaringly obvious.

I think it's a stretch to argue that Elmer did benefit unduly from the crime. The will was already written, and it's not like his grandfather was unaware that murders occur.

You miss the glaringly obvious argument (but then again I'm unsurprised) that because common law was known to dictate, even before the judge said so, that one who kills someone can not inherit from his victim, that the grandfather knew, or should have known, that the provision of the inheritance would not have applied should he be murdered by his grandson.

In other words, his grandfather knew what the will contained, knew that murders occur,and also knew that should he be murdered by Elmer the will would have been voided anyway.

And regardless of that, common law dictates that he can not inherit from the will of someone he killed.

Doesn't matter what his grandfater wanted. Doesn't matter what Elmer wanted. Neither of their wishes can circumvent the law, and the law, at the time, as was known, was that you don't inherit in those instances.

I think it's a stretch to argue that Elmer did benefit unduly from the crime. The will was already written, and it's not like his grandfather was unaware that murders occur.

*howls with laughter*

Do you honestly believe the grandfather devised his will with the thought that it was possible his grandson would murder him to speed things up? And that in so considering the possibility, he went on to think to himself, 'ah well, that's an enterprising little boy, I suppose if he kills me, he should get the money anyway!'

The law is clear, and has been for many centuries. You don't get to keep the money that you committed a crime to get your grubby hands on.

And anyway, we're not discussing how to practise the law. We're discussing how to design a legal system that makes logical sense. Your legal training is no more relevant than my lack of it.

Wow you're lousy at deduction. I never claimed that meant I had relevant knowledge.

I was simply illustrating my planned (at the time) path to the judiciary.

which is absolutly irrelevant now, isn't? Good you planned to be a judge.

When I was 5 I wantd to be an astronaut. You are't a lawyer. I am not an astronaut. I won't try to fly a rocket to the moon, you don't try to make legal arguments.

The law is clear, and has been for many centuries. You don't get to keep the money that you committed a crime to get your grubby hands on.

Hmmm....

*revises bank-robbery plans*

And anyway, we're not discussing how to practise the law. We're discussing how to design a legal system that makes logical sense. Your legal training is no more relevant than my lack of it.

ones legal training is as much relevant to the discussion of how to design a legal system as ones structural engineering training is relevant to the discussion of how to design a bridge.

In other words, a whole lot.

Trying to argue what kind of legal system is best without a fundamental understanding of the function, methodology, benefits and negatives of the various systems is as stupid as trying to argue about how to build a bridge without knowing how to build a fucking bridge.

And regardless of that, common law dictates that he can not inherit from the will of someone he killed.
Really? Can you show me that?
Doesn't matter what his grandfater wanted. Doesn't matter what Elmer wanted. Neither of their wishes can circumvent the law, and the law, at the time, as was known, was that you don't inherit in those instances.
And I would agree with that. Our dispute hinges on what the law said prior to that decision.

*howls with laughter*

Do you honestly believe the grandfather devised his will with the thought that it was possible his grandson would murder him to speed things up? And that in so considering the possibility, he went on to think to himself, 'ah well, that's an enterprising little boy, I suppose if he kills me, he should get the money anyway!'
No, I suspect it never crossed his mind.

And that's his failure. Not Elmer's.

Wow you're lousy at deduction. I never claimed that meant I had relevant knowledge.

I was simply illustrating my planned (at the time) path to the judiciary.

In response to Arthais calling into question your qualifications to discuss this topic.

Clearly you intended us to believe you had SOME qualifications. You don't.

In response to Arthais calling into question your qualifications to discuss this topic.

Clearly you intended us to believe you had SOME qualifications. You don't.
First of all, no I didn't.

And second, that you inferred my intent (which is necessarily unknowable to you since it exists solely inside by brain) demonstrates an appalling lack of deductive reasoning on your part.

Why do you think the robbers hide the cash?

Um... as a kind of Bank-Robber Easter-Egg hunt?

Because they're descended from Pirates and have a genetic and cultural disposition towards 'burying' treasure?

To keep those god-awful banks from stealing it back?

Hmmm....

*revises bank-robbery plans*

Why do you think the robbers hide the cash?

No, I suspect it never crossed his mind.

And that's his failure. Not Elmer's.

Arthais dealt with this already, no need for me to restate the obvious for you.

Arthais dealt with this already, no need for me to restate the obvious for you.
No reasonable person would accept his response.

And by reasonable, I mean "able to reason". The law defines the term somewhat differently.

First of all, no I didn't.

And second, that you inferred my intent (which is necessarily unknowable to you since it exists solely inside by brain) demonstrates an appalling lack of deductive reasoning on your part.

ok then, since you admit you have no qualifictions, admit to having no qualifications, and aren't trying to pretend you do have some qualifications...why the hell should I listen or care what you have to say?

No reasonable person would accept his response.

Two hundred years of legal precident have agreed with my response.

Your untrained, uneducated, and unsophisticated opinion on the law is worthless.

Why do you think the robbers hide the cash?
Because someone else is still the legal owner.

Elmer's grandfather wasn't still the legal owner of his inheritance because he'd died and willed it to Elmer.

The difference here is akin to the distinction between compensatory and punitive damages. By returning the money, the robbers are paying compensatory damages, but Elmer's penalty is punitive.

Alright. Now, what meaning were you trying to convey with this little commentary? That you in fact DO have the ability to understand even basic legal principles? I think that's been clearly proven to be false.

If not that...then what?

He just wanted us to know he wanted to be a judge at one point. I guess he didn't mean to make any point with that, just thought we might want to know.

In that vein, I suggest we turn the discussion of this thread to how when I was 6 I wanted to be an astronaut.

First of all, no I didn't.

And second, that you inferred my intent (which is necessarily unknowable to you since it exists solely inside by brain) demonstrates an appalling lack of deductive reasoning on your part.

Alright, I'll let you clarify your intentions. Here are the posts in question:

Fortunatly then you don't have the authority to make that choice, and, based on your total inability to understand even basic legal principles, never will.


For a time I had wanted to be a judge. As such, I worked in politics, because Canadian judges are political appointees. It was a sound plan. I even qualified for law school (I'm very good at 2/3 of the LSAT - reading comprehension always screwed me up because the passages were insufficiently precise to have literal meaning).


Alright. Now, what meaning were you trying to convey with this little commentary? That you in fact DO have the ability to understand even basic legal principles? I think that's been clearly proven to be false.

If not that...then what?

Elmer's grandfather wasn't still the legal owner of his inheritance because he'd died and willed it to Elmer.

Elmer's grandfather wasn't still the legal owner because elmer was dead.

His estate was the legal owner. Elmer was not because the law prevented him from being so.

The difference here is akin to the distinction between compensatory and punitive damages. By returning the money, the robbers are paying compensatory damages, but Elmer's penalty is punitive.

Try not to bring civil law terms into criminal law discussion. There were no damages in this situation. I can't take you seriously if you can't keep your legal schemes seperate.

There was no damages paid because, by law, Elmer was never in legal posession of the money. That's the point.

If not that...then what?
It was an aside. You're assuming relevance when you have no evidence for it. As it happens, there was relevance.

I was responding to Arthais's relief that I lacked the authority to enforce the law as I saw fit. My little story demonstrated that I had at one point wanted to make a career of that very thing, and I had had a credible plan for acheiving it.

The law school thing didn't matter, because Canadian judges need not be trained attorneys.

I'd also like to point out that in civil law systems the training for lawyers and judges are very different from each other.

It was an aside. You're assuming relevance when you have no evidence for it. As it happens, there was relevance.

I was responding to Arthais's relief that I lacked the authority to enforce the law as I saw fit. My little story demonstrated that I had at one point wanted to make a career of that very thing, and I had had a credible plan for acheiving it.

Which is very nice and good. The fact that at one point you considered it still doesn't change that right now you don't.

Your statement doesn't in any way refute what I said, so I'm not really sure why you even brought it up.

I notice that Religious Law wasn't listed as one of the options to vote for.

In many ways, I imagine that Llewdor might appreciate that sort of system; enduring, patently obvious, and relatively unalterable (with some exceptions of interpretation.)

The punishment for crimes is usually spelled out in black and white for everyone, and is drilled into everyone in society from almost day one. Justice need not apply.

Take the 'religious' context out of it, and waddaya think Llew?

No, he was not. Why not? Because society determined he as not, and the judge applied the rule of society.
Was the societal rule knowable to Elmer?

How?
nothing retroactive at all. That punishment was always there, society decided it should be there.
It's retroactive if Elmer couldn't have known about it in advance.

Was the societal rule knowable to Elmer?

How?

It's retroactive if Elmer couldn't have known about it in advance.

If he couldn't have known about it it wouldn't have been common law, duh.

Was it knowable to him? Yes, it's common fucking sense. Hence "common" law.

This is precisely why common law came about in the first place.
And in doing so, society made a terrible collective decision.

No, it doesn't. Not even the slightest. If the law was vague, and generally unknown it would not, by definition, be common law. That's what common law MEANS.
You still don't get it. To be knowable the common law would have to be absolutely precise.
If you haven't been to law school what makes you think you're even remotely qualified to discuss law?

Took a few legal philosophy classes and think you know something? I took those too. I also took biology, I don't discuss how to perform surgery.
I actually have a degree in legal philosophy, but that's not really relevant, either. I'm basing my position here on pure reason.

And in doing so, society made a terrible collective decision.

What exactly is so terrible about it?

The fact that judges are set to precedent, or that the system is too complex for a layman to understand? I could appreciate those views. However life is too complex and the particulars of each scenario so different that it is nigh-impossible to properly codify every possible outcome fairly.

Most earlier societies simply chose (either democratically, traditionally, or authoritatively) individuals to make 'just' decisions, because trying to codify everything would be too inefficient to bother with.

Hammurabi would have had an enormous garden of stone architecture portraying laws. Not necessary.

If he couldn't have known about it it wouldn't have been common law, duh.

Was it knowable to him? Yes, it's common fucking sense. Hence "common" law.
An appeal to common sense has no place in a reasoned discussion. Common sense isn't knowable. I would also argue it isn't sense.

Many common sense positions are just flat out wrong, and demonstrably so. Neesika demonstrated that earlier by drawing an inferred conclusion.

You still don't get it. To be knowable the common law would have to be absolutely precise.

Bullshit. Civil law is not absolutely precise.

I actually have a degree in legal philosophy, but that's not really relevant, either. I'm basing my position here on pure reason.

Your reason is crap.

Elmer was entitled to that inheritance. By taking it from him, the court retroactively added to the punishment for the murder of his grandfather.

That's grossly unfair. Why did Elmer have to pay tens of thousands of dollars in penalties that other murderers didn't?

And your section on the nature of wills yet again fails to be relevant. If Elmer hadn't killed his grandfather, the will would have been perfectly legal. Nothing about the will failed to comply with the law. Elmer's grandfather didn't write an uninterpretable will.

you seem to be making the "newbie" mistake of thinking that if you have a reasonable interpretation of the law then when the courts rule otherwise they are wrong.

a man kills his grandfather to prevent his grandfather from disinheriting him. should he inherit?

there are 2 possible rulings

1) yes because that is what the will says

2) no because that would be profiting from the crime of killing his grandfather

(there were probably more possibilities but im not a lawyer)

that the judge chose the ruling you dont agree with doesnt make him wrong. his ruling has to have a BASIS in the law and it has to serve justice. as long as it does, its not wrong no matter how much someone might have preferred ruling #1.

with a different lawyer and a different judge its possible that the ruling would have gone your way. would the ruling have then been wrong? not necessarily. it would have a basis in law and it (sort of) serves justice.

Which is very nice and good. The fact that at one point you considered it still doesn't change that right now you don't.

Your statement doesn't in any way refute what I said, so I'm not really sure why you even brought it up.
What you said didn't warrant refutation. It wasn't even substantive. You're glad I'm not a judge. Oooh, scathing.

An appeal to common sense has no place in a reasoned discussion. Common sense isn't knowable. I would also argue it isn't sense.

It has every place. Custom in society is a perfectly fine source to derive rules for society.

Many common sense positions are just flat out wrong, and demonstrably so. Neesika demonstrated that earlier by drawing an inferred conclusion.

Actually I'm more inclined tobelieve her inferred conclusion was absolutly right, and you're backtracking after being mde fun of.

In that vein, I suggest we turn the discussion of this thread to how when I was 6 I wanted to be an astronaut.

I thought you were 5 when you wanted to be an astronaut?

I wanted to be a sniper.

What you said didn't warrant refutation. It wasn't even substantive. You're glad I'm not a judge. Oooh, scathing.

then why did you reply? To tell me something about you that I couldn't give a shit about?

Good for you, still don't give a shit about it.

And why not? Because your position is ungrounded, uneducated, unsubstantiated, and without any actual knowledge or experience.

that the judge chose the ruling you dont agree with doesnt make him wrong. his ruling has to have a BASIS in the law and it has to serve justice. as long as it does, its not wrong no matter how much someone might have preferred ruling #1.

with a different lawyer and a different judge its possible that the ruling would have gone your way. would the ruling have then been wrong? not necessarily. it would have a basis in law and it (sort of) serves justice.
And that's the problem with a common law system. It's not predictable with anything approaching certainty.
you seem to be making the "newbie" mistake of thinking that if you have a reasonable interpretation of the law then when the courts rule otherwise they are wrong.
Sound reasoning only leads one place at a time.

then why did you reply? To tell me something about you that I couldn't give a shit about?

Good for you, still don't give a shit about it.
I don't need you to care - I just wanted to tell the story.

This relates back to my discussion with Dempublicents on whether a conversation is a thing.

The law school thing didn't matter, because Canadian judges need not be trained attorneys.

That's the stupidest thing you've said yet. And that is really something, all things considering.

"Judges are appointed by the federal or provincial/territorial governments, depending on the level of court. To be appointed by the federal government to a superior court, the Federal Court, or the Supreme Court, a candidate must have been a lawyer for at least ten years. Judges appointed to provincial/territorial superior courts must also be qualified to practise law in the jurisdiction in question. There are similar requirements for provincial/territorial appointments. "

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/trib/page4.html

That's the stupidest thing you've said yet. And that is really something, all things considering.

"Judges are appointed by the federal or provincial/territorial governments, depending on the level of court. To be appointed by the federal government to a superior court, the Federal Court, or the Supreme Court, a candidate must have been a lawyer for at least ten years. Judges appointed to provincial/territorial superior courts must also be qualified to practise law in the jurisdiction in question. There are similar requirements for provincial/territorial appointments. "

http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/pub/trib/page4.html
Finally someone presents real information.

Thank you. I was mistaken on that point.

See? Presented with actual contrary evidence, I'll revise my position. This is the first time in the thread (or, indeed, in any of the legal threads) when someone has bothered to do that.

Sound reasoning only leads one place at a time.

Nonsense and absolute bullshit. Youhave obviously never encounteed the expression "reasonable people can disagree".

Finally someone presents real information.

Thank you. I was mistaken on that point.

See? Presented with actual contrary evidence, I'll revise my position. This is the first time in the thread (or, indeed, in any of the legal threads) when someone has bothered to do that.
The kind of 'real information' YOU need to be able to talk about law, I've already asked you to go out and get. I'm not here, and I don't think Arthais is either, to be your law professor. Educate YOURSELF. Don't continue to pretend that your lack of education somehow makes your arguments valid, and that the only thing that can prove you wrong are the FACTS you should get off your ass and gather BEFORE coming in here and waving your ignorance around.

The information you lack, is readily available to you. But you actually have to put in the effort. And unless you're ready to cough up the cash to pay my salary, I'm not going to teach it to you.

Finally someone presents real information.

Thank you. I was mistaken on that point.

See? Presented with actual contrary evidence, I'll revise my position. This is the first time in the thread (or, indeed, in any of the legal threads) when someone has bothered to do that.

It's not my job to teach you. You go out, you learn the law, you get yourself educated, you make the effort, THEN speak.

It's not my job to explain to you why your arguments are bullshit. I'm just going to call them bullshit.

I'm not your teacher, dont waste my time by expecting me to go through the effort to explain to you why your position is bullshit. You should learn the information on a topic necessary to actually form an informed opinion before you open your mouth, not spout off an undeducated position and wait for people who know better to take the time to explain to you why you are wrong.

Your whole style of arguing i "I'm right, because I don't know enough to know that I'm wrong, and if you want to prove me wrong, you have to teach me the things i should have known before I went down this topic of discussion". I have no respect for that method of "debate", and am not going to allow you to waste my time.

The kind of 'real information' YOU need to be able to talk about law, I've already asked you to go out and get. I'm not here, and I don't think Arthais is either, to be your law professor. Educate YOURSELF. Don't continue to pretend that your lack of education somehow makes your arguments valid, and that the only thing that can prove you wrong are the FACTS you should get off your ass and gather BEFORE coming in here and waving your ignorance around.

The information you lack, is readily available to you. But you actually have to put in the effort. And unless you're ready to cough up the cash to pay my salary, I'm not going to teach it to you.

It's not my job to teach you. You go out, you learn the law, you get yourself educated, you make the effort, THEN speak.

It's not my job to explain to you why your arguments are bullshit. I'm just going to call them bullshit.

I'm not your teacher, dont waste my time by expecting me to go through the effort to explain to you why your position is bullshit. You should learn the information on a topic necessary to actually form an informed opinion before you open your mouth, not spout off an undeducated position and wait for people who know better to take the time to explain to you why you are wrong.

I have no respect for that method of "debate", and am not going to allow you to waste my time.

In Stereo nonetheless...

In Stereo nonetheless...

Great minds and all that... :D

Nonsense and absolute bullshit. Youhave obviously never encounteed the expression "reasonable people can disagree".
I've encountered the expression. It's just patently false.

Do you have no formal logical training?

I've encountered the expression. It's just patently false.

Do you have no formal logical training?

of course. In addition, I have something far more important.

Legal training. Which is far more releant to a discussion of law. Training which you lack, and as such, are not qualified to be involved in this discussion. Frankly I don't feel like getting involved in a discussion with someone unqualified to discuss it who is atempting, vainly, to try and apply his studies to make up for the obvious regret he feels for chosing an absolutly worthless degree

Llewdor...you're trying to talk shit about the law, without the background to do it.

Don't get up on your high horse with the 'logical training' again. It ain't gonna save ya.

Training which you lack, and as such, are not qualified to be involved in this discussion.

:eek: I think someone just got bitch slapped out of their own thread!

The kind of 'real information' YOU need to be able to talk about law, I've already asked you to go out and get. I'm not here, and I don't think Arthais is either, to be your law professor. Educate YOURSELF. Don't continue to pretend that your lack of education somehow makes your arguments valid, and that the only thing that can prove you wrong are the FACTS you should get off your ass and gather BEFORE coming in here and waving your ignorance around.

The information you lack, is readily available to you. But you actually have to put in the effort. And unless you're ready to cough up the cash to pay my salary, I'm not going to teach it to you.
It's not my job to teach you. You go out, you learn the law, you get yourself educated, you make the effort, THEN speak.

It's not my job to explain to you why your arguments are bullshit. I'm just going to call them bullshit.

I'm not your teacher, dont waste my time by expecting me to go through the effort to explain to you why your position is bullshit. You should learn the information on a topic necessary to actually form an informed opinion before you open your mouth, not spout off an undeducated position and wait for people who know better to take the time to explain to you why you are wrong.

Your whole style of arguing i "I'm right, because I don't know enough to know that I'm wrong, and if you want to prove me wrong, you have to teach me the things i should have known before I went down this topic of discussion". I have no respect for that method of "debate", and am not going to allow you to waste my time.
As I've said, I'm approaching this from a position of pure reason, and thus I'm trying not to make any assumptions. If I do that, the only way I can be wrong is if I make a mistake in logic, and no one has yet pointed one out.

If you're just going to stand there and call bullshit, then you're the least persuasive debater in the world. And I say that aware that I'm not persuasive. But I don't try to be. I try to adopt defensible positions that aren't demonstrably false or unreasonable. That's my primary criterion. As long as I don't know that I'm wrong, I'm possibly right. I revise my position only upon discovering that I am wrong.

Incidentally, this is exactly how science works. Science works pretty well.

Llewdor...you're trying to talk shit about the law, without the background to do it.

Don't get up on your high horse with the 'logical training' again. It ain't gonna save ya.
It would appear that the legal practise specifically requires that you draw unreasonable conclusions, one of which I caught you in in this very thread.

I don't particularly want to know how to practise law. I want to find a legal system that is entirely consistent with deductive reasoning, and common law isn't.

And that's the problem with a common law system. It's not predictable with anything approaching certainty.

Sound reasoning only leads one place at a time.

no really, lawyers exist in all types of legal systems. even well written laws are open to intepretation.

its for the best that you arent going to law school.

As I've said, I'm approaching this from a position of pure reason, and thus I'm trying not to make any assumptions. If I do that, the only way I can be wrong is if I make a mistake in logic, and no one has yet pointed one out.
Ah! I see! Your position is:

"I'm right, except of course when the facts say I'm wrong, so if you want to prove me wrong, show me the facts I should have already known."

Or conversely, since that didn't play out:

"I'm right, except of course where I've made a mistake in logic, and since no one has pointed out such a mistake, I'm right, go me!"

It must be hard to know that you are so right, but that no one else has the intelligence to understand you.

That kind of reminds me of a song (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7A1PyPCrJPY)...

of course. In addition, I have something far more important.

Legal training. Which is far more releant to a discussion of law. Training which you lack, and as such, are not qualified to be involved in this discussion. Frankly I don't feel like getting involved in a discussion with someone unqualified to discuss it who is atempting, vainly, to try and apply his studies to make up for the obvious regret he feels for chosing an absolutly worthless degree
And now it's your turn to draw a completely foundationless conclusion. Say hi to Neesika.

As it happens, I'm quite happy with my philosophy degree, and my astrophysics degree, and my current vocation as technical staff with an international charity.

My ability to apply deductive reasoning to the world is, in my experience, without peer. It's as if you're not even aware of the set of your assumptions, and you think that's okay because most people share your assumptions.

But it's not okay. By believing things to be true when you have no evidence for them is setting you up to be wrong, and I can't imagine why you'd want that.

You fail to be the computer I want governing society.

I would point to the Japanese system as a purer example.
I wouldn't. The Japanese system is a very good example of how NOT to run a legal system.

As I've said, I'm approaching this from a position of pure reason, and thus I'm trying not to make any assumptions. If I do that, the only way I can be wrong is if I make a mistake in logic, and no one has yet pointed one out.

It is not that you have made a mistake in logic. Your mistake is assuming that a legal system CAN be run on pure logic. It can't. It's impossible. Such a system would fail spectacularly.

That's your problem. It's not that you've made an error somewhere in detailing your premise. It's that your premise is worthless.

And, had you actually bothered to study law, you'd know WHY it's worthless.

It would appear that the legal practise specifically requires that you draw unreasonable conclusions, one of which I caught you in in this very thread. What...the one where you talked about how you once wanted to be a lawyer, and I pointed out that wanting to be a lawyer doesn't make you qualified to speak as one? The one where you then said you'd brought up because it showed how you could have been a judge...except that judges in Canada have to be lawyers? That one? Yes. Very unreasonable conclusions I made. Boy oh boy.

I don't particularly want to know how to practise law. I want to find a legal system that is entirely consistent with deductive reasoning, and common law isn't.
Yeah well, good luck on that.

And now it's your turn to draw a completely foundationless conclusion. Say hi to Neesika. No need, I'm sucking his cock under his desk.:eek:

As it happens, I'm quite happy with my philosophy degree, and my astrophysics degree, and my current vocation as technical staff with an international charity.
That's swell.
My ability to apply deductive reasoning to the world is, in my experience, without peer. It's as if you're not even aware of the set of your assumptions, and you think that's okay because most people share your assumptions.Wow! In your experience, you are the best deductive reasoner EVER! I'm so impressed! In my experience, you're the shittiest debater on issues of law ever. Is that like...two black holes cancelling each other out and becoming a jelly donut or something?

But it's not okay. By believing things to be true when you have no evidence for them is setting you up to be wrong, and I can't imagine why you'd want that. Yeah...believing the law to be what the law actually is...is just so...like...totally...wow man. Bummer.

I wouldn't. The Japanese system is a very good example of how NOT to run a legal system.

I'm interested in some examples, if you have any. I know squat about the Japanese legal system.

*See that Llewdor? It's not really that hard to admit when you don't know something.*

As I've said, I'm approaching this from a position of pure reason, and thus I'm trying not to make any assumptions. If I do that, the only way I can be wrong is if I make a mistake in logic, and no one has yet pointed one out.Why should the statute governing the will take precendence over the law that says you aren't allowed to benefit from the commission of a crime?

Ah! I see! Your position is:

"I'm right, except of course when the facts say I'm wrong, so if you want to prove me wrong, show me the facts I should have already known."
This is actually a necessity of logic. Let me use a specific part of my argument with Arthais as an example.

He's claiming that existing law prior to Riggs v. Palmer held that Elmer could no inherit. I'm claiming that no such law existed.

The only way for me to prove my case is to present the whole of the law prior to Riggs, but even then I couldn't prove that my set of law was complete. Whereas, all Arthais has to do if find a single instance of his law.

Bertrand Russell made this same argument using a rhinocerous as an example. While you can demonstrate there is a rhinocerous in the room by finding a rhinocerous there, it's not possible to demonstrate that there is not a rhinocerous in the room, regardless of whether there is.
It must be hard to know that you are so right, but that no one else has the intelligence to understand you.
I find it frustrating when people don't understand their own positions. You're holding up positions which aren't demonstrably false, but nor are they demonstrably true, and yet you present them as if they are demonstrably true, seemingly without realising it.

Common Law FTMFingW

Why should the statute governing the will take precendence over the law that says you aren't allowed to benefit from the commission of a crime?
First, because its statutory, and second, because the second one law didn't exist, and third, because Elmer wasn't benefitting from his crime. He was found guilty, and he was thrown in prison, exactly in accordance with statute.

How's that?

I find it frustrating when people don't understand their own positions.

It's not that people don't understand your positions. It's that your positions are so radically untenable that people have trouble believing that you seriously advocate them.

I'm interested in some examples, if you have any. I know squat about the Japanese legal system.

*See that Llewdor? It's not really that hard to admit when you don't know something.*

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that relying on Godzilla to save Tokyo all the time only ends up in buildings falling to pieces.

No one fucks with the Honourable Judge God-zi-ra!!




Yeah... enough for one night.

First, because its statutory, and second, because the second one law didn't exist, and third, because Elmer wasn't benefitting from his crime. He was found guilty, and he was thrown in prison, exactly in accordance with statute.

How's that?

Shit all because none of those three points are correct.

Well the first point is technically "correct", it was a statutory law. It just doesn't matter. The common law existed before the statute, and the statute did not explicitly overturn it.

It's not that people don't understand your positions. It's that your positions are so radically untenable that people have trouble believing that you seriously advocate them.
Your own position. I complained that you don't understand your own position.

My positions aren't untenable. They just run contrary to your preconceived (but foundationless) notions.

My positions aren't untenable. They just run contrary to your preconceived (but foundationless) notions.

I've gone to law school. You have not.

how is it my notions about how the law works is foundationless when between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually has seriously studied the foundations of law?

Tell me again how duct tape and bubblegum makes a good bridge? Go on, explain to me how you, with no educaton in the subject knows more than a professional.

First, because its statutory, Which is statutory?

and second, because the second one law didn't exist, Neesika posted something that said that the law that you couldn't benefit from a crime committed existed since the 14th Century.

and third, because Elmer wasn't benefitting from his crime. He was found guilty, and he was thrown in prison, exactly in accordance with statute.

How's that?His crime was causing the death of his grandfather. He only inherited from his grandfather as a direct result of his grandfather's death. He directly benefitted from his crime in this case.

Once again, you amuse me to no end :D

Happy to Oblige!! ;)

If I were to hazard a guess, it would be that relying on Godzilla to save Tokyo all the time only ends up in buildings falling to pieces.

No one fucks with the Honourable Judge God-zi-ra!!

Yeah... enough for one night.

Once again, you amuse me to no end :D

Look, you appeal to common sense. Common sense is what people generally think (if not, let me know).

But I can't know what people generally think. I can only know what I think, and I think the point of the law is to tell me what the rules of society are. If I can't tell what the rules of society are before acting, then the law has failed as a tool.

What the rules are, or whether they're just, isn't relevant to this core function. Only whether they're predictable and knowable (and knowledge requires certainty).

I'm interested in some examples, if you have any. I know squat about the Japanese legal system.
From the strange to the more serious:

Japanese courts are contrained to follow the laws exactly as written, which means that if the Diet doesn't bother to write a law, or leaves a loophole...

Well, I am sure you heard about the famous Japanese vending machines that sold used schoolgirl panties. The police could not touch them for the longest time due to no law being written that said that selling used schoolgirl panties was illegal. The police finally had to apply the antiquites law that states all antiques must have a certificate to prove authentisity before being able to stop the practice.

Gambling is illegal in Japan, except that you see pachinko parlors everywhere where a machine that is a compination of a slot and pinball machine is played. The parlors get around the ban by giving you little metal balls, said balls are traded in for prizes. You then take the prizes around the corner to the friendly mob run exchange center (That has nothing to do with the parlor, nope, not at all) and get money for the prizes. The prizes go back to the pachinko parlor.

Prostitution is, of course, illegal in Japan, except that prositution is defined as male to female prenatrative (Vaginal) sex. This gives rise to Japan's 'pink' establishments that do everything BUT vaginal penitration, and they are perfectly legal.

Japan also has an issue with underage prositution. This one is funny, the age of consent in Japan is 13, but it is illegal to PAY a girl under 18 to have sex, how the girls get around it is by making sure to never accept money from their clients, but, instead, get 'gifts' like designer clothing and bags. It is perfectly legal then.

A number of companies have gotten caught knowing about design flaws in their products that have caused the deaths of a number of people (currently there's a big scandal going on about this); however, because there's no exact law against doing this, the companies will not face charges of criminal negligence, just failure to report, a minor inconvenince.

Some big issues:

Japan is, by Article 9, not allowed to have a military, however the Japanese Self Defence Force is one of the largest and most well equipt 'police' forces in the world, as long as it's never refered to as a military, it's legal.

It's also perfectly legal for the head of state to publically worship and call on others to do so (In violation of the constitution), just as long as he does so as a 'private citizen' (Which means in the news conference he calls himself that).

It's ok for Japanese buisnesses to discriminate against non-Japanese because there is no law against discrimination.

It's ok for Tokyo to force teachers to stand and sing the national anthem, and punish them if they do not; because even though the constitution gives freedome of thought and speech, a ceramony wasn't mentioned and a song isn't speech (I'm being serious here, this is the legal rulling from a Tokyo court).

A child born to a woman who divorced her husband 293 days prior is registered to her ex-husband, even though her new husband is the acknowledged father due to a law written in the 1800's.

Children born to suraget mothers are not allowed to be registered to their genetic parents due to the law stating that a mother is a woman who gives birth, period.

Children of Japanese fathers who do not admit to and marry the non-Japanese woman BEFORE birth, are not considered Japanese, or children of their father, even if the father admits to it afterwards.

This is current cases in Japan, where the courts have rulled that given the laws, this is what has to be decided. And no, the Diet doesn't look like it will take them up any time soon.

This is actually a necessity of logic. Let me use a specific part of my argument with Arthais as an example.

He's claiming that existing law prior to Riggs v. Palmer held that Elmer could no inherit. I'm claiming that no such law existed.

Alright, just to shut you up, I'll prove this to you. But first, I want to point out something very 'logical' that you've missed in terms of this case. As Justice Earl put it in Palmer:

"Just before the murder he was not an heir, and it was not certain that he ever would be. He might have died before his grandfather, or might have been disinherited by him. He made himself an heir by the murder, and he seeks to take property as the fruit of his crime. What has before been said as to him as legatee applies to him with equal force as an heir. He cannot vest himself with title by crime."

That negates your argument that the money was inevitably Palmer's anyway.

Anyway, New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong ,117 U. S. 591 (1886) came out before this case, and follows a long line of case law before that. In that case, "it was held that the person who procured a policy upon the life of another, payable at his death, and then murdered the assured to make the policy payable, could not recover thereon".

Now, because you have shown yourself to be totally ignorant in the law, I will point out that the different fact pattern in the Armstrong case is irrelevant. The common law principle that you shall not profit from the proceeds of your crime is simply upheld in the case law, again, and again, and again.

But, because you lack the capacity to understand the law, you will likely dismiss this proof. Which only goes to show how pointless this conversation with you is.

*snip* What's that sound? Is that Llewdor crying over the crumbling of his 'pure example'?

Look, you appeal to common sense. Common sense is what people generally think (if not, let me know).

But I can't know what people generally think. I can only know what I think, and I think the point of the law is to tell me what the rules of society are. If I can't tell what the rules of society are before acting, then the law has failed as a tool.

What the rules are, or whether they're just, isn't relevant to this core function. Only whether they're predictable and knowable (and knowledge requires certainty).

Your idea that knowledge requires certainty, in the context of law, is absolute bullshit, because even in statutory systems the law is not always completely clear. For instance, read Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135 (1994).

The law can never be understood with absolute certainty. The laws are written, and the written word will always have an element of ambiguity. Thus I say your system is totally untenable. You wish for a system where anyone, at any time, can, with absolute certainty know the exact meaning of the law, with no ambiguity, uncertainty, or need for clarification.

Completely, utterly, 100% impossible. Never will happen. Law, by the very nature of being written by humans, in a language that by definition is imprecise and subject to interpretation, will never be absolutly 100% clear 100% of the time.

Thus your argument that "knowledge requires certainty" is, as I said, utterly untenable in all practicality. You will never achieve such a system. It is impossible.

And one can be presumed to know the rules of the society because he lives in that society thus has been presented with the opportunity to know them.

Your system of 100% knowable and utterly clear, without any ambiguity, law is, as I said, impossible.

It is an idiot idea presented by an idiot poster who doesn't have a clue how the legal system works. And if you knew a THING about the law, you would know that already.

What's that sound? Is that Llewdor crying over the crumbling of his 'pure example'?
On the contrary, Japan does indeed stand as an example of 'pure' civil law, where judges and the courts are contrained to follow the law as written.

It just show WHY it isn't a good idea to follow only the letter of the law and not include the spirit.

On the contrary, Japan does indeed stand as an example of 'pure' civil law, where judges and the courts are contrained to follow the law as written.

It just show WHY it isn't a good idea to follow only the letter of the law and not include the spirit.

That's the point. The shining example of the pue civil system that gives Llewdor a hard on has some SERIOUS problems

On the contrary, Japan does indeed stand as an example of 'pure' civil law, where judges and the courts are contrained to follow the law as written.

It just show WHY it isn't a good idea to follow only the letter of the law and not include the spirit.

I agree.

I think 'pure' in Llewdor's mind means, 'works perfectly according to my philosophy'.

Which is a system that simply never will exist.

I've gone to law school. You have not.

how is it my notions about how the law works is foundationless when between the two of us, I'm the only one who actually has seriously studied the foundations of law?
Because we're not discussing how the law works. We're discussing how the law should work.

Yeah...believing the law to be what the law actually is...is just so...like...totally...wow man. Bummer.
I'm not disputing that you and Arthais know better than I how the common law system works. I'm disputing that it's a logical system. I'm disputing that an outsider could read the laws and from that know what was legal and what wasn't with anything approaching certainty.

Because we're not discussing how the law works. We're discussing how the law should work.

And your description about how the law should work is completely unworkable, as I already described. Which you'd know if you studied law.

Which is statutory?
The statute. Of the statute and the precedent, only the statute is something someone formally decided should be in the law. How the principles behind the precedence arise is unknown to me.
Neesika posted something that said that the law that you couldn't benefit from a crime committed existed since the 14th Century.
Yes she did. It was almost a complete non sequitur. Neesika failed to draw a connection between that law and the evidence in Riggs.
His crime was causing the death of his grandfather. He only inherited from his grandfather as a direct result of his grandfather's death. He directly benefitted from his crime in this case.
Wrong. The murder only indirectly caused the inheritance. He inherited as a direct result of being in his grandfather's will, something over which he had no control.

Alright, just to shut you up, I'll prove this to you. But first, I want to point out something very 'logical' that you've missed in terms of this case. As Justice Earl put it in Palmer:

"Just before the murder he was not an heir, and it was not certain that he ever would be. He might have died before his grandfather, or might have been disinherited by him. He made himself an heir by the murder, and he seeks to take property as the fruit of his crime. What has before been said as to him as legatee applies to him with equal force as an heir. He cannot vest himself with title by crime."

That negates your argument that the money was inevitably Palmer's anyway.
I didn't claim inevitability. The point was that as things stood prior to the murder, Elmer's inheritance did not require any action or inaction on his part. Therefore his action (murdering his grandfather) made no material difference.
Anyway, New York Mutual Life Insurance Company v. Armstrong ,117 U. S. 591 (1886) came out before this case, and follows a long line of case law before that. In that case, "it was held that the person who procured a policy upon the life of another, payable at his death, and then murdered the assured to make the policy payable, could not recover thereon".
And the reason this one is a different sort of example is because the murderer, in this case, took out the policy. This would only be relevantly similar if Elmer had coerced his grandfather into writing the will.

The statute. Of the statute and the precedent, only the statute is something someone formally decided should be in the law. How the principles behind the precedence arise is unknown to me.

And nobody who drafted the statute formally decided to over rule common law doctrines. Common law held that you could not inherit in this mannor, the statute did not over ride this. When one law exists, another law must clearly over ride it for the first law to be null. THe common law existed, the statute did nothing to clearly over ride it.

Yes she did. It was almost a complete non sequitur. Neesika failed to draw a connection between that law and the evidence in Riggs.

She did this already. Read first, then talk.

Wrong. The murder only indirectly caused the inheritance. He inherited as a direct result of being in his grandfather's will, something over which he had no control.

The logical equivalent of saying that if someone steals a car, then later finds money in that car, he finding that money is only indirectly related to his crime, because he only stole the car, and the money happened to be in the car, which is something he had no control over.

If you HAD gone to lawschool you would have learned something about "but for" causation, and the theory behind proximite cause. The distinction you draw is a distinction the law has ALREADY dealt with. The legal doctrines behind causation have already developed to encompass the situation that you describe.

You are making an argument that has long since been defeated before you ever knew about it. And again, you would know this, if you studied law. You are making arguments that you shouldn't be, because if you had the knowledge you need to actually seriously make the argument, you would know it's a bullshit one.

I didn't claim inevitability. The point was that as things stood prior to the murder, Elmer's inheritance did not require any action or inaction on his part. Therefore his action (murdering his grandfather) made no material difference.

Yes it did. Again, proximite cause. ONe of those things you learn about in law school. For one event to occur, another event must preceed it. For Elmer to inherit his grandfather must die. Death of his grandfather must occur for the inheritance to occur. Elmer illegally caused the death of his grandfather, and the death of his grandfather caused Elmer to inherit. If elmer did not kill his grandfather, elmer might not have inherited.

Elmer inheriting at that time was a necessary event for the inheritance to occur. Had Elmer NOT killed his grandfather, he may not have inherited.

Had he not committed the criminal act, he would not have received the inheritance. Elmer's illegal act brought about the inheritance. But for Elmer's criminal act, he would not have inherited.

"But for" causation. One of those things you learn about....in law school


And the reason this one is a different sort of example is because the murderer, in this case, took out the policy. This would only be relevantly similar if Elmer had coerced his grandfather into writing the will.

No, once again, the relevant facts deal with theories of causation that you don't know about.

I'm pretty much through discussing this with you, you're obviously in over your head and I don't have time to waste screwing around with you.

The statute. Of the statute and the precedent, only the statute is something someone formally decided should be in the law. How the principles behind the precedence arise is unknown to me.Does it matter how they arose? I mean, if the precedent is wrong then it could be argued as such without knowing the principles, right?

Yes she did. It was almost a complete non sequitur. Neesika failed to draw a connection between that law and the evidence in Riggs.Because the U.S. used English Common Law as the basis of many of its laws.

Wrong. The murder only indirectly caused the inheritance. He inherited as a direct result of being in his grandfather's will, something over which he had no control.False. Being in his grandfather's will would be entirely irrelvant had his grandfather still been alive.

I'm not disputing that you and Arthais know better than I how the common law system works. I'm disputing that it's a logical system.

Think about this. Think about it REAL HARD. You just clearly stated you are arguing the merits of a system you don't fully understand.

Let that sink in.

*snip*
Thank you. It seems someone is willing to provide information to support my claims.

Yes, my claims.
What's that sound? Is that Llewdor crying over the crumbling of his 'pure example'?
I'm quite pleased with NERVUN's examples.

Look at those vending machines. The guy who thought those up was able to example the Japanese law and determine that there was no law prohibiting them, and thus went forward with his business plan. This is how the law should work.

That NERVUN thinks the machines should be illegal doesn't matter. They weren't, because they'd never been made so by statute. It's a perfect example. This way the law can't be influenced by public opinion except through the legislative process, thus protecting people from ex post facto decisions.

Because that's what it would have been had some judge ruled that the vending machines were illegal. That businessman invested a bunch of capital on the expectation that his plan was within the law, and every piece of information available to him said it was. If a judge then disagrees, he gets screwed over.

The Japanese system works beautifully. That the laws seem strange or alien doesn't matter, because they're being enforced very consistently. Any reasonable person, even one with no personal contact, can learn them.

wouldnt it be more interesting to discuss how comprehensive the law should be (or however llewdor's ideal system would be described) rather than make the same points over and over again about a case that no one but llewdor disagrees on the outcome of?

This case is his shining example of why he thinks the legal system is wrong. Unfortunatly for him, his reasoning as to WHY it was the wrong decision is based on certain false assumptions of his as to how the law works.

Which is the point. He thinks it's wrong because he has the wrong idea of how the system functions.

wouldnt it be more interesting to discuss how comprehensive the law should be (or however llewdor's ideal system would be described) rather than make the same points over and over again about a case that no one but llewdor disagrees on the outcome of?

Think about this. Think about it REAL HARD. You just clearly stated you are arguing the merits of a system you don't fully understand.

Let that sink in.
I don't need to. I can appeal to your expertise as evidence that the system is illogical. You've asserted that the statement "reasonable people can disagree" is sensical within the system.

Because we're not discussing how the law works. We're discussing how the law should work.

It is difficult...if not impossible to discuss how a system SHOULD be, when you have absolutely no understanding of how that system works presently.

We could, for example, discuss how education SHOULD be organised, what it should be based on, etc etc. But we can not have a meaningful discussion unless we understand how education is currently organised, and what the founding principles are that guide it.

You don't toss out a system without understanding it. You learn about it, you seek out the flaws, how those flaws have been dealt with either well, or inadequately, and you then try to find solutions. Just assuming, from a total position of ignorance, that it doesn't work...is absurd. You are being absurd.

This could be an excellent conversation on law reform, if you even, in the slightest, had any idea of what you were talking about.

But you don't. It like saying, 'I don't speak Spanish...but I have some really good ideas about how people should speak Spanish'.

Good for you, that's really nice. Totally useless though.

On the contrary, Japan does indeed stand as an example of 'pure' civil law, where judges and the courts are contrained to follow the law as written.

It just show WHY it isn't a good idea to follow only the letter of the law and not include the spirit.
The spirit isn't knowable. As such, it should carry no weight at all.

It's not just that reasonable people can disagree as to what the spirit is, but that no reasonable person can claim to have any idea what the spirit is.

I don't need to. I can appeal to your expertise as evidence that the system is illogical. You've asserted that the statement "reasonable people can disagree" is sensical within the system.

And you've asserted that my statement is, in and of itself, illogical.

This is stupid. The principles that you wish to ascribe to the justice system simply CAN NOT be, such a system would be unworkable. And you are too thick headed to see that. I've explained it, more than once. You've ignored my explanation.

So, rather than beat myself against your self imposed wall of ignorance, I'm not going to bother. You are wasting my time.

I'm not disputing that you and Arthais know better than I how the common law system works. I'm disputing that it's a logical system.
This is your problem. Again, you are saying, 'hey, I don't know anything about this, but I'm going to say the system isn't logical. And I'm right, until you prove me wrong.'

Now that might make sense to you. But I am not going to go to someone in Economics and say, 'look, no economic theory works at all. I don't understand the slightest thing about economics, but I'm right until you prove me wrong'.

You are basically asking us to teach you. Get off your lazy ass and get some information on your own FIRST. Then come talk.

That's the point. The shining example of the pue civil system that gives Llewdor a hard on has some SERIOUS problems
I didn't see a single problem in his set of examples.

Were some of the laws quite odd? Yes they were. Did I think some of the laws were dumb? Yes I did. Would I rather not be governed by some of those laws? Absolutely.

But none of that matters, because I consider the predictability of the judiciary even more important. What the laws actually end up being doesn't matter, and doesn't influence my perception of the system.

Think of laws that appeal to community standards. Community standards aren't knowable (if they were, someone could compile them into a reference guide). And they change, so I could do something today and have it be perfectly legal, but then do it again in 20 years, governed by exactly the same laws, and have it be illegal. How does that make any sense at all?

wouldnt it be more interesting to discuss how comprehensive the law should be (or however llewdor's ideal system would be described) rather than make the same points over and over again about a case that no one but llewdor disagrees on the outcome of?

Part of the problem with this, is that people are going to be making assumptions about the present legal system, based on ignorance. And I'm going to get really tired of saying, 'Hey yeah, that's a good idea, isn't it. And we've been doing it for hundreds of years. Next!'

It is difficult...if not impossible to discuss how a system SHOULD be, when you have absolutely no understanding of how that system works presently.

We could, for example, discuss how education SHOULD be organised, what it should be based on, etc etc. But we can not have a meaningful discussion unless we understand how education is currently organised, and what the founding principles are that guide it.

You don't toss out a system without understanding it. You learn about it, you seek out the flaws, how those flaws have been dealt with either well, or inadequately, and you then try to find solutions. Just assuming, from a total position of ignorance, that it doesn't work...is absurd. You are being absurd.

This could be an excellent conversation on law reform, if you even, in the slightest, had any idea of what you were talking about.

But you don't. It like saying, 'I don't speak Spanish...but I have some really good ideas about how people should speak Spanish'.

Good for you, that's really nice. Totally useless though.

And this is the point. You are trying to take up my time to engage you in conversation about a system that you yourself admit to not understanding. You take my words as evidence that it doesn't work, without any understanding of the context of my words or how they relate.

You are the great fan of logic aren't you? The most rational person you know, shocking everyone with your brilliance? Then how can you, or great scion of logic, even presume you can argue about the flaws of a system you do not know?

Neesika is right, this would be a great conversation, were you equipped to have it. You aren't. You are trying to have an argument on a topic without knowing the terminology of the topic. I can't argue with you the merits and drawbacks of a system of proximite cause and "but for" causation, because YOU DON"T KNOW WHAT THAT IS. And they are central to our system of justice. I can't have a debate with you about why "but for" causation is a good, or a bad system, because you don't know how it works.

I can't discuss a system with someone who doesn't understand the system. I can't discuss whether "but for" causation is a good idea, if you don't know what it is. It would require me to teach you everything as we move forward. And I'm not your damned teacher. I'm not the person who is responsible for making sure you know what you need to know to argue with me.

You want to debate me, don't disrespect me by showing up then expecting me to teach you what you need to know to debate me. Learn first, then speak. You are wasting my time otherwise, and frankly, you can't afford my time.

it has to be common law where is the fun if you cant state some obscure law from about 700 years ago that is still in enacted

But none of that matters, because I consider the predictability of the judiciary even more important.

Good for you. You're wrong. I don't feel like continuing to explain to you why you are wrong.


Think of laws that appeal to community standards. Community standards aren't knowable (if they were, someone could compile them into a reference guide). And they change, so I could do something today and have it be perfectly legal, but then do it again in 20 years, governed by exactly the same laws, and have it be illegal. How does that make any sense at all?

If that is the case, than in thos 20 years the community standards have changed, and thus common law has changed.

Your position that community standards are unknowable is bullshit. Someone, in fact, CAN compile them into a reference guide.

It's called the federal reporter.

Does it matter how they arose? I mean, if the precedent is wrong then it could be argued as such without knowing the principles, right?
But if you don't know how they arise, you can't know when they arise. And that means you can't know which principles govern you.
False. Being in his grandfather's will would be entirely irrelvant had his grandfather still been alive.
But the grandfather's eventual death is inevitable.

But the grandfather's eventual death is inevitable.

But elmer being in the will (or even being alive) when it occurs is not. That's the point.

This case is his shining example of why he thinks the legal system is wrong. Unfortunatly for him, his reasoning as to WHY it was the wrong decision is based on certain false assumptions of his as to how the law works.

Which is the point. He thinks it's wrong because he has the wrong idea of how the system functions.

yes but you have completely destroyed him on this. what is the point of making the same point over and over again when he is the only one who thinks he is winning and he will never admit that you are right?

he also has the wrong idea of how the system SHOULD function. you cant force people to behave in logical predictable ways. you cant even come up with a code that covers the behavior of a 5 year old.

The logical equivalent of saying that if someone steals a car, then later finds money in that car, he finding that money is only indirectly related to his crime, because he only stole the car, and the money happened to be in the car, which is something he had no control over.
But he couldn't have found the money without stealing the car. Elmer still could have inherited without killing his grandfather.

Still not relevantly similar.

he also has the wrong idea of how the system SHOULD function. you cant force people to behave in logical predictable ways. you cant even come up with a code that covers the behavior of a 5 year old.

Exactly. Llewdor wants the impossible. A system simple enough that a simpleton can know it with total certainty...yet a system complex enough to cover all the bases.

Yes it did. Again, proximite cause. ONe of those things you learn about in law school. For one event to occur, another event must preceed it. For Elmer to inherit his grandfather must die. Death of his grandfather must occur for the inheritance to occur. Elmer illegally caused the death of his grandfather, and the death of his grandfather caused Elmer to inherit. If elmer did not kill his grandfather, elmer might not have inherited.

Elmer inheriting at that time was a necessary event for the inheritance to occur. Had Elmer NOT killed his grandfather, he may not have inherited.

But the only way that could have changed is for his grandfather to choose to will his money to someone other than his living relative Elmer.

Elmer doesn't have the authority to change his grandfather's will, and that's what you're claiming he's done.

leaving the letter of the law aside for a moment...

do you think that elmer SHOULD have gotten the inheritance he killed his grandfather to get?

its a moral question rather than a legal one.
I answer it as a legal question. I think he should have, because the law as it was knowable to him said he should have.

I have no reason to believe there are answers to moral questions.

But he couldn't have found the money without stealing the car. Elmer still could have inherited without killing his grandfather.

Still not relevantly similar.

leaving the letter of the law aside for a moment...

do you think that elmer SHOULD have gotten the inheritance he killed his grandfather to get?

its a moral question rather than a legal one.

This case is his shining example of why he thinks the legal system is wrong. Unfortunatly for him, his reasoning as to WHY it was the wrong decision is based on certain false assumptions of his as to how the law works.

Which is the point. He thinks it's wrong because he has the wrong idea of how the system functions.
I recognise how the system works and that it will reach that conclusion in that case.

But any system that can reach that conclusion in that case is a bad system. That's why I present it as an example.

Part of the problem with this, is that people are going to be making assumptions about the present legal system, based on ignorance.
Reasonable people don't make assumptions like that.

This is your problem. Again, you are saying, 'hey, I don't know anything about this, but I'm going to say the system isn't logical. And I'm right, until you prove me wrong.'

Now that might make sense to you. But I am not going to go to someone in Economics and say, 'look, no economic theory works at all. I don't understand the slightest thing about economics, but I'm right until you prove me wrong'.

You are basically asking us to teach you. Get off your lazy ass and get some information on your own FIRST. Then come talk.
You already have taught me. You and Arthais are evidence that the system is illogical. Arthais, specifically, has claimed that sound logical reasoning, starting from the same set of premises, can reach two contrary conclusions.

But that's patently false. That violates the rules of sound logic. That could only happen if the set of premises was paradoxical, in which case a sound logical system could reach ANY conclusion, no matter how absurd.

I answer it as a legal question. I think he should have, because the law as it was knowable to him said he should have. You can't answer this as a legal question, holy fuck hasn't that been made ABUNDANTLY clear yet? You simply do not possess the ability to answer this from a legal perspective. The only way you CAN answer this is from a moral, or philosophical perspective. Meaning, you can not say, 'the law as it was knowable to him said'...because you are point blank wrong in what that law is. Period.

Base your answer on what you think the outcome should be, apart from your totally fallacious view of what the law is.


I have no reason to believe there are answers to moral questions.
Then there is no reason for you to remain in this thread, killing our braincells with your manifest ignorance.

Reasonable people don't make assumptions like that.

Then you've defined yourself as unreasonable, because making assumptions based on ignorance is all you've done from post 1 of this thread.

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so truly pathetic.

If that is the case, than in thos 20 years the community standards have changed, and thus common law has changed.

Your position that community standards are unknowable is bullshit. Someone, in fact, CAN compile them into a reference guide.

It's called the federal reporter.
The Federal Reporter reports case law. It doesn't let people know what the community standards are prior to them being used against someone at least once in court.

If the relevant standard hasn't been tested in 20 years, the Federal Reporter wouldn't help me. This is where I'm claiming those standards are unknowable. That first guy who gets nailed with the new standards could not have seen them coming.

OK, I'm going to explain why your version of the law is bullshit, then I am going to be done. You want a system where the written law, as codified by statute and regulation, covers all single possible circumstances and situations.

It has to do with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 9 of the UCC deals with loans. But not just loans, a very specific kind of loan. It deals with secured transactions, which are basically loans with collateral. That's it, that's all Article 9 deals with, loans with collateral. That's all, NOTHING more.

Article 9 is 250 pages long. 250 pages of rules, exception, exceptions to the exception and commentary to the exceptions of the exceptions. 250 pages dealing with NOTHING but loans with collateral. Not counting numerous court cases based on article 9.

Article 9 makes up probably 50% of my job. I would hazard to guess that there are probably no more than...20 practicing attorneys in the city of boston and perhaps 500 in the entire country who know UCC Article 9 as well, or better than I do. I should know, I know half of them. I would go so far as to say I am an expert in UCC Article 9.

All 250 pages of rules, exceptions and commentary dealing with nothing but loans with collateral.

And I, as an EXPERT, couldn't tell you half of what it says without looking at it. It's long, convoluted, confusing, dense and huge. Attorneys have made careers, very successful ones, doing NOTHING more than understanding Article 9 of the UCC, this huge volume that deals with something as simple as loans with collateral.

Your system of justice would make EVERYTHING into this. EVERY conceivable system, every possible outcome, every single thing codified, written, commented on and written in statute.

Every....single...thing.

And to make it work, you think this would be BETTER for the common man. Should make things EASIER. You think the average man on the street could understand a fully codified legal system, one that I, as a SPECIALIST in ONE SINGLE TINY ASPECT still have trouble fully understanding. Moreover, you think that the average man on the street can understand this sytem BETTER, and make predictions on it BETTER than they could make predictions based on social norms.

You think people can understand complex legal documentation covering every single aspects of their life better than they understand functional social norms? You think the average person can understand governing statutory law covering every single possible transaction and understand it fully when I, an attorney, an expert, still has trouble navigating one single chapter about one single type of transaction?

This is frankly absurd.

he also has the wrong idea of how the system SHOULD function. you cant force people to behave in logical predictable ways. you cant even come up with a code that covers the behavior of a 5 year old.
I don't need the people to behave in logical, predictable ways. I just need the law to behave in logical, predictable ways.

Then you've defined yourself as unreasonable, because making assumptions based on ignorance is all you've done from post 1 of this thread.

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so truly pathetic.

I have no idea what this thread is about, but I'm just popping in with a jar of peanut butter to further Sin's idea that I'm stalking her.

Okay, yeah, I'm a little bored. :p

OK, I'm going to explain why your version of the law is bullshit, then I am going to be done. You want a system where the written law, as codified by statute and regulation, covers all single possible circumstances and situations.

It has to do with Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code. Article 9 of the UCC deals with loans. But not just loans, a very specific kind of loan. It deals with secured transactions, which are basically loans with collateral. That's it, that's all Article 9 deals with, loans with collateral. That's all, NOTHING more.

Article 9 is 250 pages long. 250 pages of rules, exception, exceptions to the exception and commentary to the exceptions of the exceptions. 250 pages dealing with NOTHING but loans with collateral. Not counting numerous court cases based on article 9.

Article 9 makes up probably 50% of my job. I would hazard to guess that there are probably no more than...20 practicing attorneys in the city of boston and perhaps 500 in the entire country who know UCC Article 9 as well, or better than I do. I should know, I know half of them. I would go so far as to say I am an expert in UCC Article 9.

All 250 pages of rules, exceptions and commentary dealing with nothing but loans with collateral.

And I, as an EXPERT, couldn't tell you half of what it says without looking at it. It's long, convoluted, confusing, dense and huge. Attorneys have made careers, very successful ones, doing NOTHING more than understanding Article 9 of the UCC, this huge volume that deals with something as simple as loans with collateral.

Your system of justice would make EVERYTHING into this. EVERY conceivable system, every possible outcome, every single thing codified, written, commented on and written in statute.

Every....single...thing.

And to make it work, you think this would be BETTER for the common man. Should make things EASIER. You think the average man on the street could understand a fully codified legal system, one that I, as a SPECIALIST in ONE SINGLE TINY ASPECT still have trouble fully understanding. Moreover, you think that the average man on the street can understand this sytem BETTER, and make predictions on it BETTER than they could make predictions based on social norms.

You think people can understand complex legal documentation covering every single aspects of their life better than they understand functional social norms? You think the average person can understand governing statutory law covering every single possible transaction and understand it fully when I, an attorney, an expert, still has trouble navigating one single chapter about one single type of transaction?

This is frankly absurd.
There's a reason I support extensive deregulation.

I have no idea what this thread is about, but I'm just popping in with a jar of peanut butter to further Sin's idea that I'm stalking her.

Okay, yeah, I'm a little bored. :p

Ugh, I'm bored too. You can only beat down a fool so many times before losing interest. Especially if they have no new material.

You should really comment on the thread so I can kick your ass around too.

Exactly. Llewdor wants the impossible. A system simple enough that a simpleton can know it with total certainty...yet a system complex enough to cover all the bases.
Wrong again. I don't need the law to cover all the bases.

I'm not sure how to get to that conclusion. Maybe you're assuming the law needs to be able to produce just outcomes in all cases. I don't know.

But there's no reason for you to do that. Over time, the law will approach completeness, without ever actually getting there. There will always be loopholes - something someone didn't consider. And that's okay. If someone exploits the loophole, you write a new law to stop it from happening again, but you have no cause the penalise that first guy for having benefitted from the hole in the law.

And I don't need a simpleton to be able to understand it. The law will probably end up being exceedingly complicated. But as long as a rational agent (or a computer) could predict legal decisions, it would be a good system.

Then you've defined yourself as unreasonable, because making assumptions based on ignorance is all you've done from post 1 of this thread.

It would be laughable, if it wasn't so truly pathetic.
Can you point to a single assumption of mine?

I suspect you're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle, so that when I say I don't think something exists, you read that to mean I think it doesn't exist.

But that's not what I said.

There's a reason I support extensive deregulation.

extensive deregulation in a purely civil law system is effectively one step up from anarchy.

There's a reason I support extensive deregulation.

No you don't.

Your position has been that everything should be totally and exhaustively regulated, laid out in black and white in some Code, in order ot be 'known'.

If you want to suddenly focus on deregulation in economic terms, sorry, that's a cop out. Don't suddenly say, 'oh, I'm not going to pay attention to your example because I want economic deregulation la la la la la, I'm not listening!'

You should have the basic ability to extrapolate this example into one you could support, and have the balls to admit that your system would be so hopelessly confusing that the 'average man' would never, not EVER really 'know' the law.

You should really comment on the thread so I can kick your ass around too.

Nah, I might enjoy that too much. ;)

By the way, are you still doing your radio show? I was told a while back that I'd make an interesting foil for you. :D

But there's no reason for you to do that. Over time, the law will approach completeness, without ever actually getting there. There will always be loopholes - something someone didn't consider. And that's okay. If someone exploits the loophole, you write a new law to stop it from happening again, but you have no cause the penalise that first guy for having benefitted from the hole in the law.


Hence the reason we often have statutes following cases where a loophole has been found, and exploited.

See, you still believe that your Palmer example works to support you. And that is because you do not understand the common law. You think that the rule applied in Palmer was made up on the spot. I showed you that it had been used for centuries. Arthais pointed out that no statute had overturned it. It was always law, and it was applied.

Now, where there really are situations in which no law covers a situation, people get away with exploiting the loopholes. And hopefully, legislators step in and close that loophole.

See? You already have a system that works. Feel better?

Can you point to a single assumption of mine? Yeah. Your analysis of Palmer, is one big, erroneous assumption...and we've showed you why. Repeatedly.

I suspect you're incorrectly assuming an excluded middle, so that when I say I don't think something exists, you read that to mean I think it doesn't exist.
But that's not what I said. You're a funny man.:rolleyes:

Nah, I might enjoy that too much. ;)

By the way, are you still doing your radio show? I was told a while back that I'd make an interesting foil for you. :D

That was Stephistan. My radio stint was ages ago, and I just DJ'd powwow music.

No you don't.

Your position has been that everything should be totally and exhaustively regulated, laid out in black and white in some Code, in order ot be 'known'.
Only if you assume positive law.

Deregulation would result is wide swaths of society being governed only by very simple laws like don't destroy people's property and abide by your contracts.

Think about it. Does Article 9 really need to be as complicated as Arthais says it is?
You should have the basic ability to extrapolate this example into one you could support, and have the balls to admit that your system would be so hopelessly confusing that the 'average man' would never, not EVER really 'know' the law.
I don't care whether the average man could understand the system. I care only whether a reasonable man could understand it.

The average man is far from reasonable.

Law should be (and ultimately IS) simple: I do not harm you, you do not harm me. To Hell with anything that complicates it beyond that.

And I don't need a simpleton to be able to understand it. The law will probably end up being exceedingly complicated. But as long as a rational agent (or a computer) could predict legal decisions, it would be a good system.

Your presumption about what the law should be is fundamentally flawed. Law needs to be at least somewhat predicable by a common person, and fundamentally linked to traditional notions of justice.

A purely civil system would either be excessively burdened, thus preventing the first, or covered through excessive loopholes, thus destroying the second.

The average person on the street is far more capable of explaining to you general social norms than he is explaining the contents of Article 9 of the UCC. A purely civil system has EXCESSIVE trouble meeting both standards.

You're a funny man.:rolleyes:
Why is that funny?

If I say, "I don't think A exists," that is equivalent to, "The position 'A exists' is one I do not hold."

The position "A does not exist" hasn't been mentioned, and I've given you no clue at all as to what my position is on that.

I don't care whether the average man could understand the system. I care only whether a reasonable man could understand it.

The average man is far from reasonable.

The average man is, and thus your problem. What the hell good is a system of law if the average person can not understand it? You are so concerned with predicatibility, you completely ignore the problem of, if the average person can not understand it, what good is it?

Why is that funny?

If I say, "I don't think A exists," that is equivalent to, "The position 'A exists' is one I do not hold."

The position "A does not exist" hasn't been mentioned, and I've given you no clue at all as to what my position is on that.

Don't worry, I do understand your need to make yourself look intelligent after the terrible beating you've taken in this thread. And perhaps it will convince people just coming into this topic.

As for me, I've got a lunch to eat that is much more entertaining than you. Sorry.

Hence the reason we often have statutes following cases where a loophole has been found, and exploited.

See, you still believe that your Palmer example works to support you. And that is because you do not understand the common law. You think that the rule applied in Palmer was made up on the spot. I showed you that it had been used for centuries. Arthais pointed out that no statute had overturned it. It was always law, and it was applied.

Now, where there really are situations in which no law covers a situation, people get away with exploiting the loopholes. And hopefully, legislators step in and close that loophole.

See? You already have a system that works. Feel better?
Let's suppose for the moment that you're right. The common law principle governing Palmer existed prior to the case.

At some point, that principle had to appear for the first time. Didn't the guy in that case get screwed over by its sudden appearance?

Youre hung up on "Palmer didn't fail", but that's really beside the point. The first use of any given principle in a case is the failure of the legal system I'm talking about. Regardless of whether it happened in Palmer, it had to happen sometime.

Think about it. Does Article 9 really need to be as complicated as Arthais says it is?

Yes, it does. And it's inherently arrogant as hell of you to talk about whether a system you know nothing about needs to be as complicated as it is.

Let's suppose for the moment that you're right. The common law principle governing Palmer existed prior to the case.

At some point, that principle had to appear for the first time. Didn't the guy in that case get screwed over by its sudden appearance?

Youre hung up on "Palmer didn't fail", but that's really beside the point. The first use of any given principle in a case is the failure of the legal system I'm talking about. Regardless of whether it happened in Palmer, it had to happen sometime.

Perhaps, perhaps not. More to point, I would rather one person get screwed over in my system than the masses of people who would get screwed over in your system.

If you are so concerned with people getting screwed, why are you so vastly unconcerned that the number of those so screwed would be exponentially higher in your version?

Consistancy appears to be a problem with you.

Then there is no reason for you to remain in this thread, killing our braincells with your manifest ignorance.
I have no reason to believe that morality is a thing. Therefore, I can't base law on it.

Let's suppose for the moment that you're right. The common law principle governing Palmer existed prior to the case.

At some point, that principle had to appear for the first time. Didn't the guy in that case get screwed over by its sudden appearance?
I already showed you a previous case where the principle was applied. The principle is not constrained by the specific fact pattern. There is no need for there to be exactly the same circumstances in order to apply the legal principle in question. And there are literally thousands of cases stretching back to the 14th century in which this principle is applied.

There was nothing new, or shocking, or sudden about it. And no, I'm not going to go search for more cases for you. Tell you what...you go ahead and get access to Quicklaw and do your own search. I believe the service charges $250 per hour to use. They take credit cards.

Enjoy!

I don't care whether the average man could understand the system. I care only whether a reasonable man could understand it.

The average man is far from reasonable.Why would you want a legal system that an average person couldn't understand? Isn't the purpose of your argument that people should be able to understand the law before making decisions based on it?

That was Stephistan. My radio stint was ages ago, and I just DJ'd powwow music.

Ah, right. Now I remember. It was quite a long time ago that the suggestion was made. Sawwy.

Why would you want a legal system that an average person couldn't understand? Isn't the purpose of your argument that people should be able to understand the law before making decisions based on it?

yes, that does appear to be a flaw in his reasoning doesn't it? That the thing he asks for would run counter to the very thing he claims he wants, and then he claims he doesn't really want it.

Law needs to be at least somewhat predicable by a common person, and fundamentally linked to traditional notions of justice.
I don't hold either of those things to be true. If you do, you should have a reason for it.

Care to share?
The average person on the street is far more capable of explaining to you general social norms than he is explaining the contents of Article 9 of the UCC. A purely civil system has EXCESSIVE trouble meeting both standards.
I'm better capable of explaining Article 9 than I am general social norms (because someone bothered to write down Article 9, so I could at least go read it - social norms have no such definitive repository). As such, the common law you prefer fails utterly to serve me, and since I'm the only person whose thoughts I know, I'm the only person for whom I can tailor a legal system.

I have no reason to believe that morality is a thing. Therefore, I can't base law on it.

good for you. Other people disagree. Those are the people who make the law.

Basing a system of law on an bad vision of how the world works results in one thing.

A bad system of law.

yes, that does appear to be a flaw in his reasoning doesn't it? That the thing he asks for would run counter to the very thing he claims he wants, and then he claims he doesn't really want it.

The inexorable logic of it is beyond my intellectual abilities. He truly is the smartest among us.

Why would you want a legal system that an average person couldn't understand? Isn't the purpose of your argument that people should be able to understand the law before making decisions based on it?
Not people generally. Reasonable people.

That's a different set.
yes, that does appear to be a flaw in his reasoning doesn't it? That the thing he asks for would run counter to the very thing he claims he wants, and then he claims he doesn't really want it.
Unreasonable people are entirely unpreditable, so we can't pretend to influence their behaviour with the law. Therefore, only reasonable people need concern us.

I don't hold either of those things to be true. If you do, you should have a reason for it.

As such, your system of what the law should be runs entirely contrary to the fundamental philosophies that were behind the existance of a legal system.

The reasons you would create a justice system are completely divorced from the actual reasons the system of justice was created and evolved.

As such of course what you want would be totally divergant from what is, the fundamental reasons for why it is, are reasons you disagree with. Your rationale, however, is stupid, and therefore, your result is stupid.

As for why I believe it, again I don't feel like doing your homework for you. I suggest you start with Hobbes, Locke and Payne.


I'm better capable of explaining Article 9 than I am general social norms (because someone bothered to write down Article 9, so I could at least go read it - social norms have no such definitive repository). As such, the common law you prefer fails utterly to serve me, and since I'm the only person whose thoughts I know, I'm the only person for whom I can tailor a legal system.

Because you apparently suffer from some form of antisocial personality disorder and are incapable of drawing reasoned inferences from your social enviornment doesn't mean a system of law should be tailored to accomodate your disability.

good for you. Other people disagree. Those are the people who make the law.

Basing a system of law on an bad vision of how the world works results in one thing.

A bad system of law.
Do you think morality is a thing?

Perhaps that warrants its own thread.

Hahahahaa....Llewdor...you do realise that the reasonable person test is situational, don't you?

Never mind...just makes me giggle.

As for why I believe it, again I don't feel like doing your homework for you. I suggest you start with Hobbes, Locke and Payne.
Okay, now we're entering my area of expertise. I'll get back to you on these.
Because you apparently suffer from some form of antisocial personality disorder and are incapable of drawing reasoned inferences from your social enviornment doesn't mean a system of law should be tailored to accomodate your disability.
Inferences can't be reasoned.

Induction bad. Deduction good.

As for your diagnosis (are you a psychologist, too, or is it now you who is dabbling in areas beyond your ken?), should not the law serve all people? Isn't that what you've been saying? But your system would fail to serve the antisocial.

Only if you assume positive law.

Deregulation would result is wide swaths of society being governed only by very simple laws like don't destroy people's property and abide by your contracts.

Think about it. Does Article 9 really need to be as complicated as Arthais says it is?

I don't care whether the average man could understand the system. I care only whether a reasonable man could understand it.

The average man is far from reasonable.

geez llew, all you have to do is watch "judge judy" for a week to see why the rule "abide by your contracts" isnt enough.

everyone who ends up in court on a contract dispute thinks that they are in the right. everyone thinks that its the other guy who is not abiding by the contract. if they thought they were wrong, they wouldnt pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to plead a losing case in court.

geez llew, all you have to do is watch "judge judy" for a week to see why the rule "abide by your contracts" isnt enough.

everyone who ends up in court on a contract dispute thinks that they are in the right. everyone thinks that its the other guy who is not abiding by the contract. if they thought they were wrong, they wouldnt pay a lawyer thousands of dollars to plead a losing case in court.
Any any contract dispute, one of three things will be true of the contract.

Either the contract will clearly say you're right, or it will clearly say I'm right, or it will clearly say neither of those things. In that third case, the contract should simply be discarded and declared void.

Hahahahaa....Llewdor...you do realise that the reasonable person test is situational, don't you?

Never mind...just makes me giggle.
We've been over this, Neesika.

The legal definition of "reasonable person" isn't the one I've been using. I even defined reasonable for you.

You keep reverting to the legal definition of reasonable man, and it isn't far removed from the average man, or the common man. But that's not what I'm saying, and because I expected this misunderstanding, I offered a definition right at the start, which apparently you chose to ignore.

You know what, I understand it now. For two days I've been trying to bang my head as to what your POINT was. I approached this from a standard that you believed such a system would be better universally.

So I've approached those arguments to demonstrate that it is not. I've based my position on believing that you were making these arguments because you believed your system of justice to be generally better. More just, more fair, more equitable. And I've been trying my hardest to show you why such a system was NOT more just, more fair, more equitable.

But I get it now, I've been wrong behind your rationale. You don't like our current system for no other reason than that YOU don't like it. You don't give a damn about justice, or fairness, or equity. You don't care about creating a system that's better for all.

You just want a system that's better for you. You would, if you had your way, disregard a system based on the interests of what's for the greater good in favor of a system that is better for YOU.

This isn't about the best justice system. This is not about the justice system you want for the people. This is about the justice system you want for you.

This isn't about justice, or fairness, or equity. This is about narcissism. Plain and simple. You don't give a damn about what would be best for society. You care about the system that YOU would feel most comfortable in.

Well you're not that special. Because you don't like it isn't a reason. Because Llewdor isn't comfortable is not a rationale. A system of justice needs to be designed to be most servicable for the PEOPLE.

Not you.

And frankly, I'm not going to engage in your narcissim. I'm not going to have an argument about what system of justice is best for you. I don't give a damn about you, and really don't care what system YOU would prefer. I care about what is best for the people, as a collective entity. I care about which system would serve the greater good. And until you show me one solid reason why your position would be best for THE PEOPLE, until you give me an argument about why your system is BETTER, and not just a system that you personally would be more comfortable in, I don't give a damn about this conversation. You're just not that special.

Because you apparently suffer from some form of antisocial personality disorder and are incapable of drawing reasoned inferences from your social enviornment doesn't mean a system of law should be tailored to accomodate your disability.
Incidentally, calling antisocial people disabled would really irritate the neurodiversity movement. You might want to watch that insensitivity.

Any any contract dispute, one of three things will be true of the contract.

Either the contract will clearly say you're right, or it will clearly say I'm right, or it will clearly say neither of those things. In that third case, the contract should simply be discarded and declared void.

And your general presumption that a contract, being a written device created by imperfect language can, in all instances, clearly say something, is fundamentally flawed.

Incidentally, calling antisocial people disabled would really irritate the neurodiversity movement. You might want to watch that insensitivity.

sorry, can't be bothered to give a fuck about it, or you, or your disability. You are not special enough for the entire justice system to be redesigned to accomodate your inadequacies as a human being.

tsk tsk. watch judge judy. you will see how the rules governing contracts reflect reality better than "if its not indisuputably clear, throw it out"

and fundamentally this is his problem. His understanding is firmly grounded in another reality.

Unfortunatly for him, when devising systems that work on the planet earth, one should really stick to this universe.

Any any contract dispute, one of three things will be true of the contract.

Either the contract will clearly say you're right, or it will clearly say I'm right, or it will clearly say neither of those things. In that third case, the contract should simply be discarded and declared void.

tsk tsk. watch judge judy. you will see how the rules governing contracts reflect reality better than "if its not indisuputably clear, throw it out"

You know what, I understand it now.
Congratulations.
For two days I've been trying to bang my head as to what your POINT was.
Mistake 1. You don't need to understand my point to respond to specific assertions of questions.
I approached this from a standard that you believed such a system would be better universally.

So I've approached those arguments to demonstrate that it is not. I've based my position on believing that you were making these arguments because you believed your system of justice to be generally better. More just, more fair, more equitable. And I've been trying my hardest to show you why such a system was NOT more just, more fair, more equitable.
Is that what you were trying to do? That explains a lot.
But I get it now, I've been wrong behind your rationale. You don't like our current system for no other reason than that YOU don't like it.
Correct. You defend it because you do like it. Why you like (because it's just and equitable) it is immaterial.
You don't give a damn about justice, or fairness, or equity.
Right on two counts. I've been basing my entire position on fairness.
You don't care about creating a system that's better for all.
Partly correct. I'll cover that next.
You just want a system that's better for you. You would, if you had your way, disregard a system based on the interests of what's for the greater good in favor of a system that is better for YOU.
I think reasonably. I think most people can think reasonably if they try; they just don't bother. A legal system that treats people reasonably accomodates the largest segment of the population, and that segment happens to include me.

And yes, I give myself greater weight because I'm the only person I can ever genuinely understand.

A system that relies on this apparently magical ability to inuit the thoughts of others in the total absence of evidence cannot serve any reasonable person. Ever. Therefore, reasonable people are guaranteed to be left out.
This isn't about the best justice system. This is not about the justice system you want for the people. This is about the justice system you want for you.
Not quite. This isn't about justice at all. This is about a legal system, not a justice system.
You care about the system that YOU would feel most comfortable in.
Of course. I'm entirely left out by your system.
A system of justice needs to be designed to be most servicable for the PEOPLE.
My system of laws does serve the people if they'll just learn how to use it and not rely on how they feel, or whether they deem anything to be right and good. That's not much of a rationale, either.

and fundamentally this is his problem. His understanding is firmly grounded in another reality.

Unfortunatly for him, when devising systems that work on the planet earth, one should really stick to this universe.

and one should get over the notion that if it makes sense to YOU its the way the law is or should be. one gets into so much trouble by assuming that personal logic is public logic.

And your general presumption that a contract, being a written device created by imperfect language can, in all instances, clearly say something, is fundamentally flawed.
Didn't I just say that it won't be clear some of the time?

His estate was the legal owner. Elmer was not because the law prevented him from being so.

Uhm, you're using circular logic here. When discussing if the judiciary system should either give the money to Elmer since there was no written law, or if it should assume that the law exists in society, but people just failed to write it down, this argument reduces to "Common law is correct because we apply common law".

and one should get over the notion that if it makes sense to YOU its the way the law is or should be. one gets into so much trouble by assuming that personal logic is public logic.
That's like saying there's a difference between personal math and public math.

Logic isn't subjective.

tsk tsk. watch judge judy. you will see how the rules governing contracts reflect reality better than "if its not indisuputably clear, throw it out"
When you signed it, you knew under what circumstances it would be clear and under what circumstances it wouldn't, didn't you? Otherwise, why did you sign it? How could you agree to something if you didn't know what the terms were?

I just bought a home. I read that contract very thoroughly. I pored over the condominium bylaws, the last 2 years of council minutes, the laws governing condominia where I live. Anyone who fails to do that is basically signing their life away when they sign any contract.

That's like saying there's a difference between personal math and public math.

Logic isn't subjective.

yeah it is.

logic governing human affairs always comes from a point of view. your point of view, your priorities, you stake in the outcome affects how your logic proceeds.

it is NOT logical for a society to allow people to inherit money from people that they killed for the purpose of inheriting sooner. your preferred outcome encourages others to do just that. an illogical outcome implies bad logical process.

When you signed it, you knew under what circumstances it would be clear and under what circumstances it wouldn't, didn't you? Otherwise, why did you sign it? How could you agree to something if you didn't know what the terms were?

I just bought a home. I read that contract very thoroughly. I pored over the condominium bylaws, the last 2 years of council minutes, the laws governing condominia where I live. Anyone who fails to do that is basically signing their life away when they sign any contract.

real estate law is the most strictly codified law we have. there are still disagreements. people are in court all the time based on land disputes.

A system that relies on this apparently magical ability to inuit the thoughts of others in the total absence of evidence cannot serve any reasonable person. Ever. Therefore, reasonable people are guaranteed to be left out.

And there's your problem. You think people have this magical ability in the total absence of evidence.

This is not the case at all. In fact there's AMPLE evidence. This is how people in society function. People generally ARE capable of understanding others rationales, understanding the social rules, understanding how people think, understanding what social pressures and regulations exist. Normal people can do this.

You, apparently, can not. Therefore, because of your inadequacy, you prefer a system of law that favors how YOU work, and insist that this system is best, because it's best for YOU, and then suggest that people should make more of the effort to think like YOU do. Which, apparently, is totally devoid of emotional context and social skills.

You lack social ability. You lack the capability to understand your social surroundings. You lack the ability to, through social intuition, gather information about your social space and understand the social rules around you. You refer to your position as "rational and logical" and claim that other people are oh so irriational and only if they behaved like you.

The problem is your deficit causes two problems. One it causes you to be completly unable to do so, and second it causes you to be totally unaware of your own limitations. What you don't understand is that you're NOT that special, you're not the grand wise one on the mountain. You, unlike most people, lack a variable. You lack social connection. Your inability to understand your society makes you THINK you are right, but in reality, you're a two dimensional person in a three dimensional world. You see people acting in a certain way and think they're wrong, because you are incapable of understanding the additional dimension to their thinking.

You think they are off because you lack part of what they are using to base their decision on. You think them irrational, because you are incapable of understanding their rationale. Personally it sounds to me like you suffer from quite the case of Asberger's syndrome. Would certainly fit the profile.

So no, sorry junior. You are not the crowned prince of all things rational. You just THINK everyone around you is irrational because you're incapable of understanding their rationale.

And the vast majority of people should not force themselves to conform to your flawed method of thinking. YOU should make efforts to conform yourself to society. Once again, you are simply not so special.

When you signed it, you knew under what circumstances it would be clear and under what circumstances it wouldn't, didn't you? Otherwise, why did you sign it? How could you agree to something if you didn't know what the terms were?

And once again you reach your problem. You refuse to accept that two people can read the EXACT same thing and still come up with different interpretations.

You REFUSE to accept the possibility of "reasonable people can disagree".

Very well.

Jack and Jill had coffee with Bob and Tom. Afterwards, they went to the store.

Who is the "they" I am talking about? Jack and Jill, or Jack, Jill, Bob, and Tom?

The way that sentance is phrased it is not entirely clear whether "Jack and Jill had coffee with Bob and Tom. Afterwards, Jack and Jill went to the store" OR "Jack and Jill had coffee with Bob and Tom. Afterwards, all four of them went to the store"

The sentence is imprecise. It is imprecise because language is, and always will be, imprecise.

Now what happens if the result of our contract is dependant on whether or not Bob and Tom accompanied Jack and Jill to the store? You and I can read the EXACT SAME THING and interpret it differently. Despite your insistance that such a thing can never happen, and that logic demands that reasonable people will reach the same conclusion.

Your premise is bullshit. As such, your entire argument, based on such a premise, is ALSO bullshit. You can never, ever EVER EVER EVER create a system, based on language, where the meaning will always be knowable with 100% certainty, it is not possible.

At best, AT BEST you can have a system like Japan's which requires the most narrow interpretation, in which case it would simply be "Jack and Jill" who went to the store, because that's the most narrow interpretation. This does not mean, and WILL NEVER MEAN that reasonable people can look at the same exact thing, and interpret it in a different way.

On the contrary, Japan does indeed stand as an example of 'pure' civil law, where judges and the courts are contrained to follow the law as written.

It just show WHY it isn't a good idea to follow only the letter of the law and not include the spirit.

Really, after reading page after page of the same 3 posters, that's the first compelling argument I heard. Even though my a priori position is that civil law is better.

Really, after reading page after page of the same 3 posters, that's the first compelling argument I heard. Even though my a priori position is that civil law is better.

i agree. clear, written laws are the best. its just that in any legal system no matter how clear the legislators tried to be requires interpretation.

Really, after reading page after page of the same 3 posters, that's the first compelling argument I heard. Even though my a priori position is that civil law is better.

well of course written law is in many instances PREFERABLE to more amorphous common law. This generally goes without saying. However the presumption that pure civil law is, or ever can be, devoid of the necessity for interpretation and provides a complete and truly accurate expression of the law that is at all times fully understandable by rational actors who will inevitably, always reach the exact same conclusion, is naive in the extreme.

And that's exactly what llewdor seems to believe. He seems to think that in the perfect civil law system, this is exactly what would happen. The law would always be clear, always be understandable, and rational people will always reach the exact same conclusions as to what the law means.

That, of course, is absurd.

Yes, the obvious need for interpretation is what makes their discussion rather fruitless IMHO. There you have a poster who argues about a system that requires no interpretation at all - which won't work - , and there you have two posters who argue against that, when the fact that interpretation is always needed dictates that most civil law systems are, in fact, perfectly happy with interpretation.

note, I'm not arguing AGAINST civil law systems per se. I am arguing against the OPs rationale FOR a civil law system.

Civil law systems do have a lot of merit, and a lot of benefits. And also a lot of drawbacks. Civil law systems do not, however, and never will, operate the way Llewdor seems to think they will. Thus while there are good reasons for a civil law system, they are not the reasons the OP contends.

I haven't bothered really to get into WHY those systems are good or what those benefits are. I haven't really needed to. I have been more concerned with pointing out why the OP is wrong, rather than going into reasons why the civil law system itself has benefits. I don't feel like explaining why the OP might have a justification for his belief despite himself.

There ARE benefits to a civil law system. Being free of judicial interpretation, however, is not one of them. Which is really the point. The op doesn't just want a civil law system. He wants a legal system totally devoid of the need for interpretation.

Never
going
to
happen.

i agree. clear, written laws are the best. its just that in any legal system no matter how clear the legislators tried to be requires interpretation.

Yes, the obvious need for interpretation is what makes their discussion rather fruitless IMHO. There you have a poster who argues about a system that requires no interpretation at all - which won't work - , and there you have two posters who argue against that, when the fact that interpretation is always needed dictates that most civil law systems are, in fact, perfectly happy with interpretation.

That, of course, is absurd.

That's what happens when you're too deep into logic. Remembers me of this professor, who, when teaching us about predicate logic, would inform us about that problems with making "perfectly clear" logical statements with said logic because every word can be interpreted in the end; but years later, he STILL continues on his project to decode natural language based on logic.

That's what happens when you're too deep into logic. Remembers me of this professor, who, when teaching us about predicate logic, would inform us about that problems with making "perfectly clear" logical statements with said logic because every word can be interpreted in the end; but years later, he STILL continues on his project to decode natural language based on logic.

Yup, and that's the problem with people like Llewdor, who worship logic upon an altar. Logical systems have benefits. Logical operations are useful. Logical constructions create predicable results.

And people like Llewdor prostrating themselves on the altar of logic insist that if we all just behaved rationally and logically like him we'd always find the answers. But human beings aren't logic machines. We do not operate on pure systems. People like him refuse to believe that people, and thus, they themselves, are imperfect. Doing so would destroy their entire sense of self.

We are flawed, we will always be flawed. As such, any system we create will inevitably carry with it those flaws. People like Llewdor see those flaws and scream at the top of their lungs, scared to death that it destroys their pure logical systems. People like Llewdor spend their whole lives trying to scrub out the imperfections of humanity, not realizing that any system that he can devise to do so will ALSO carry that taint of imperfection.

people like him spend their whole lives trying to scrub out the "stain" of imperfection.

people like me spend their lives trying to come up with ways to find, and counteract those imperfections to the best of our ability.

One of us operates in the real world, and as such, takes into account real world imperfections. One of us does not, and tries ot devise systems free of those imperfections. One of us sees this perfect system as an aspiration to be worked towards, but never truly achieved. One of us sees this perfect system as a goal, that if we just worked hard enough we imperfect being can behave perfectly.

One of us succeeds. One of us does not.

I'll leave you to deduce which one of us is which with your own flawed and faulty logic.

Both seem to work - there are both common and civil law wealthy democracies. Civil law does seem to be the standard when building a country from scratch, but changing from one system to the other would be a real waste of time and effort, I think.

I'll leave you to deduce which one of us is which with your own flawed and faulty logic.

Let's see... you're Batman, I'm Superman? :)

(And I find it funny you're fighting with secured loans for a living. I've been fighting with regulatory stuff about those, too, although from a totally different angle.)

Fifteen pages? Seriously?

So not worth the space.

Oh come on I had hoped you would have said something about my diatribe and resultant insults

Fifteen pages? Seriously?

So not worth the space.

Yes, it does. And it's inherently arrogant as hell of you to talk about whether a system you know nothing about needs to be as complicated as it is.
I'd like to point out that here you got anoyed at something I said - except I was asking a question. Questions contain no information. They are in no way declarative.

I'd like to point out that here you got anoyed at something I said - except I was asking a question. Questions contain no information. They are in no way declarative.

I answered your question. I likewise assume that when you ask a question, you expect a complete answer. And it is your extreme arrogance that presumes to ask a question, with the assumption that you'd even understand my answer, about something you know nothing of.

For me to explain the answer in a mannor you would understand would either require knowledge you do not posesses, or for me to teach you about secured transactions. So you either presumed you'd understand, or presumed I'd teach it to you.

Either way, arrogance.

I'd like to point out that here you got anoyed at something I said - except I was asking a question. Questions contain no information. They are in no way declarative.

Bahahahahhahaaaaa....

Are you really that much of a douchebag?

No information in that non-declarative question!

yeah it is.

logic governing human affairs always comes from a point of view. your point of view, your priorities, you stake in the outcome affects how your logic proceeds.

it is NOT logical for a society to allow people to inherit money from people that they killed for the purpose of inheriting sooner. your preferred outcome encourages others to do just that. an illogical outcome implies bad logical process.
Your use of "logical" in that sentence has nothing at all to do with logic.

Logic is an axiomatic system of reasoning. A sound logical system cannot make mistakes (by definition).

Oh come on I had hoped you would have said something about my diatribe and resultant insults

Nothing to say except they made me wet.

Okay, perhaps worth it after all then.

Your use of "logical" in that sentence has nothing at all to do with logic.

Logic is an axiomatic system of reasoning. A sound logical system cannot make mistakes (by definition).

ah, but he is using a different definition than you. Something you yourself have been guilty of.

And there's your problem. You think people have this magical ability in the total absence of evidence.

This is not the case at all. In fact there's AMPLE evidence.
If that were true, they could show it to me.
This is how people in society function. People generally ARE capable of understanding others rationales, understanding the social rules, understanding how people think, understanding what social pressures and regulations exist. Normal people can do this.
How? And why are they so unwilling to teach me?
You, apparently, can not. Therefore, because of your inadequacy, you prefer a system of law that favors how YOU work, and insist that this system is best, because it's best for YOU, and then suggest that people should make more of the effort to think like YOU do. Which, apparently, is totally devoid of emotional context and social skills.
That's how reason works. Even your own "justice" system repeatedly appeals to reasonableness.
You lack social ability. You lack the capability to understand your social surroundings. You lack the ability to, through social intuition, gather information about your social space and understand the social rules around you. You refer to your position as "rational and logical" and claim that other people are oh so irriational and only if they behaved like you.
They are irrational. If this intuition is incompatible with reason, then it is necessarily irrational. That's the definition of the word.
The problem is your deficit causes two problems. One it causes you to be completly unable to do so, and second it causes you to be totally unaware of your own limitations.
I'm aware I don't draw these wild and baseless inferences.

What I ask is that someone explain to me why they're not wild and baseless. Show me how you get from point A to point B. Surely you must know, since you claim to do it constantly.
What you don't understand is that you're NOT that special, you're not the grand wise one on the mountain. You, unlike most people, lack a variable. You lack social connection. Your inability to understand your society makes you THINK you are right, but in reality, you're a two dimensional person in a three dimensional world. You see people acting in a certain way and think they're wrong, because you are incapable of understanding the additional dimension to their thinking.
The only extra ability they appear to hav is the ability to hold two contrary opinions simultaneously, thus guaranteeing themselves to be wrong at least once.

I can't imagine why this is a good thing.
You think they are off because you lack part of what they are using to base their decision on. You think them irrational, because you are incapable of understanding their rationale.
I can understand any rationale that makes logical sense. Does yours?
Personally it sounds to me like you suffer from quite the case of Asberger's syndrome. Would certainly fit the profile.
There you go dabbling in areas outside your expertise again. Whether I'm an Aspie is irrelevant to the logical content of my argument.
And the vast majority of people should not force themselves to conform to your flawed method of thinking. YOU should make efforts to conform yourself to society. Once again, you are simply not so special.
Anyone who is sentient can understand my rationale. Therefore, a legal system based on mine is the most inclusive one. Wasn't that one of your standards? Equity?

ah, but he is using a different definition than you. Something you yourself have been guilty of.
I had the decency to define my term at the start.

Furthermore, if you're going to attack my use of the word logical, shouldn't you conform to my defintion to do it. Otherwise you're just making noise.

And, why would you use the word logical if you mean something other than "of or relating to logic". It's a pretty simple little word.

Nothing to say except they made me wet.

Okay, perhaps worth it after all then.

I hope you meant that to say you pissed yourself laughing or something, because otherwise, I'd be freaked out now.

Bahahahahhahaaaaa....

Are you really that much of a douchebag?

No information in that non-declarative question!
Correct. Your question contains no information.

He wants a legal system totally devoid of the need for interpretation.
I never claimed that was possible. But I do want to minimise the need for interpretation, because interpretation is the source of all the unfairness in a legal system.

I hope you meant that to say you pissed yourself laughing or something, because otherwise, I'd be freaked out now.

What can I say? The law gets me all hot and bothered.

Correct. Your question contains no information.

Good to have that cleared up.

You weren't dropped on your head as a child, were you?

Isn't it nice when we can string together sentences with no information?

Hey, this is rather fun, isn't it?

Wait, what's the point of this? Is it just a blatant attempt to save face?

I already showed you a previous case where the principle was applied. The principle is not constrained by the specific fact pattern. There is no need for there to be exactly the same circumstances in order to apply the legal principle in question. And there are literally thousands of cases stretching back to the 14th century in which this principle is applied.

There was nothing new, or shocking, or sudden about it. And no, I'm not going to go search for more cases for you. Tell you what...you go ahead and get access to Quicklaw and do your own search. I believe the service charges $250 per hour to use. They take credit cards.

Enjoy!
So the relevant law isn't even publicly available? That makes it impossible for people to know the laws that govern them.

Perhaps, perhaps not. More to point, I would rather one person get screwed over in my system than the masses of people who would get screwed over in your system.
I would rather screw over the masses of people who choose not to know the system than the one guy who couldn't have known the system.

To do otherwise violates fairness.

How? And why are they so unwilling to teach me?

Because they, like me, are not your teachers, and they, like me, don't feel like having you waste their time teaching you things that most people are capable of dealing with.

They are irrational. If this intuition is incompatible with reason, then it is necessarily irrational. That's the definition of the word.

They are not irrational, they just include dimensions to their reasoning that you are incapable of understanding.

What I ask is that someone explain to me why they're not wild and baseless. Show me how you get from point A to point B. Surely you must know, since you claim to do it constantly.

There is a difference between not being shown, and not being incapable of understanding. I can tell you a flower is yellow. I can tell you how I KNOW it is yellow. I can not, however, demonstrate to you that it is yellow if you are blind.

I can not describe to you how one understands social situations if you are incapable of understanding it.

I can understand any rationale that makes logical sense.

No, you can not. You can not understand any rationale that includes social conditions as you are incapable of understanding those social conditions.

Whether I'm an Aspie is irrelevant to the logical content of my argument.

Whether one is illiterate is quite relevant to the content of an argument of a definition of a written word.

Whether one is blind is quite relevant to the content of an argument over whether a flower is yellow

Whether one is incapable of understanding social norms is quite relevant to an argument discussing a legal system based on an understanding of social norms.

If, through your mental defect, you are incapable of understanding how a system works, this is very relevant to debating with you how a system works.

Anyone who is sentient can understand my rationale. Therefore, a legal system based on mine is the most inclusive one.

No, your rationality is inherently flawed, as pointed out to you numerous times

So the relevant law isn't even publicly available? That makes it impossible for people to know the laws that govern them.

certainly it's publically available. There are some methods more efficient than others. Efficiency, however, costs you.

I would rather screw over the masses of people who choose not to know the system than the one guy who couldn't have known the system..

And once again, your logical base is flawed. He lived in society, he was aware of the rules of society. If he were not aware of the rules of society, then he was willfully ignorant.

So the relevant law isn't even publicly available? That makes it impossible for people to know the laws that govern them.
You can access a law library and get the same information, but I was offering you the most expeditious method of research. Both methods are available to the public...available to the public does not necessarily mean FREELY available to the public.

There are also numerous legal texts available to you, to outline the laws, comment on the relevant cases, and break things down for you in a very understandable way. Hence my disgust with your total lack of background research into this.

I pay $10,000 a year to study this shit. I'm certainly not expecting you to do that. But you can go pick up a Foundations of Law text for about $80, and at least get a basic grounding in the subject.

I never claimed that was possible. But I do want to minimise the need for interpretation, because interpretation is the source of all the unfairness in a legal system.

more noise from someone trying to debate a topic he knows nothing about.

I'm through with you, you bore me.

more noise from someone trying to debate a topic he knows nothing about.

I'm through with you, you bore me.

Yeah, I just can't be bothered to muster up any further interest. And I really want to. Ah well.

You should whisper some latin maxims in my ear instead. :D Ex turpi causa non oritur actio, baby!

And once again you reach your problem. You refuse to accept that two people can read the EXACT same thing and still come up with different interpretations.
Of course they can. But at least one of them would be wrong.

I've been looking forward to this one.
You REFUSE to accept the possibility of "reasonable people can disagree".

Very well.

Jack and Jill had coffee with Bob and Tom. Afterwards, they went to the store.

Who is the "they" I am talking about? Jack and Jill, or Jack, Jill, Bob, and Tom?
The sentence doesn't say. A reasonable person could not read the sentence and come away knowing who specifically went to the store. All he'd know is that if the sentence is accurate, at least two people (plural pronoun) went to the store.

If you read the sentence and decide that any of your suggested interpretations is correct, you have not behaved reasonably.
The way that sentance is phrased it is not entirely clear whether "Jack and Jill had coffee with Bob and Tom. Afterwards, Jack and Jill went to the store" OR "Jack and Jill had coffee with Bob and Tom. Afterwards, all four of them went to the store"
That's what I said. There is no way to know who went to the store. Anyone who claims to know has drawn an unfounded conclusion.
The sentence is imprecise. It is imprecise because language is, and always will be, imprecise.
No, it's imprecise because you wrote it as such in order to prove a point - which you failed to do.
Now what happens if the result of our contract is dependant on whether or not Bob and Tom accompanied Jack and Jill to the store?
We were fools for signing such a poorly written contract.
You and I can read the EXACT SAME THING and interpret it differently.
Yes, but for that to happen at least one of us has to be wrong.

In this case, if you argue that it's Jack & Jill who went to the store, and I argue that all four of them went to the store, we'd both be wrong, because the sentence doesn't say either thing definitively. If you need to know who went to the store, the second sentence does not tell you (except to place a minimum on the number of people who went to the store).
Despite your insistance that such a thing can never happen, and that logic demands that reasonable people will reach the same conclusion.
You're presupposing first that we are both reasonable, and second that we are necessarily reasonable and infallible 100% of the time.
Your premise is bullshit. As such, your entire argument, based on such a premise, is ALSO bullshit. You can never, ever EVER EVER EVER create a system, based on language, where the meaning will always be knowable with 100% certainty, it is not possible.
But we can still aspire to approach it. The closer we get the more we improve our legal system.
At best, AT BEST you can have a system like Japan's which requires the most narrow interpretation, in which case it would simply be "Jack and Jill" who went to the store, because that's the most narrow interpretation. This does not mean, and WILL NEVER MEAN that reasonable people can look at the same exact thing, and interpret it in a different way.
You continue to refuse to abide by the previously stated definition of reasonable. Maybe you just don't understand it. I'll rephrase:
reasonable, a.

based on and wholly constrained by logic.
Since sound logical systems cannot make mistakes, the only way two people can disagree when presented with the same information is if one of them fails to be reasonable.

Fifteen pages? Seriously?

So not worth the space.

No, no, it's not.

Nothing to say except they made me wet.

Doesn't take much, does it? ;)

Okay, perhaps worth it after all then.

Still not really, no. :p

Still not really, no. :p

Pah, just cuz you didn't get wet. Sour grapes.

And stop stalking me. I'm going to ask Kat for a restraining order.

And once again, your logical base is flawed. He lived in society, he was aware of the rules of society. If he were not aware of the rules of society, then he was willfully ignorant.
If those rules weren't both codified and publicly available, they weren't knowable.

Pah, just cuz you didn't get wet. Sour grapes.

Meh, I dribbled a bit. Still not worth it. :p

You can access a law library and get the same information, but I was offering you the most expeditious method of research. Both methods are available to the public...available to the public does not necessarily mean FREELY available to the public.

There are also numerous legal texts available to you, to outline the laws, comment on the relevant cases, and break things down for you in a very understandable way. Hence my disgust with your total lack of background research into this.

I pay $10,000 a year to study this shit. I'm certainly not expecting you to do that. But you can go pick up a Foundations of Law text for about $80, and at least get a basic grounding in the subject.
I probably have one. I carry a Pocket Criminal Code with me everywhere I go so I can consult it before I do things.

I don't understand why other people don't do that. How else do they know what the rules are?