Would you put that in the wording of the law?
"A murderer is someone not liked who has unjustly killed someone who was liked by another"?
RE: THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
THE LEFTIST ERROR ABOUT "OBLIGATION" towards "all kinds of people".
that sounds refreshingly honest
Is that a 'yes'?
yes, the letter of the law should be honest
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/common-law.asp
Watched the video.
The presenter makes me itchy, since it's hard to follow him, he swallows the words and hardly puts a coherent sentence together, it's a pain to watch him. Even subtitles don't help. So I probably missed more than half of what his concept explains.
People who attempt to decentralize what so far is used by the majority of people as places where disputes can be mediated and decided, might succeed with their concepts when they are able to prove best practice for the involved. Or, where no such place exists due to different locations and different national laws, which is a real time problem when a company from Venezuela works with a company from Bombay.
At least in disputes in which it is not the executive itself that subjects a person/company to official jurisdiction. So if the presenter has a company that is able to adjudicate said concept in disputes in the crypto-scene, through the adjudication system he presents, it will be used if those involved recognise it as useful and fair.
The weak points will reveal themselves through less clear formulated questions, for example. In my view, this requires a long test phase, certainly with real cases. The question is who will make themselves available as parties to the dispute. It is also a matter of promoting this concept.
As I said, I haven't figured out all aspects of it.
even simply on the face of it
having thousands of individuals comprising a jury
seems obviously more fair
than twelve hand-picked individuals that can be arbitrarily vetoed by the legal team on either side
So far, as I have understood it, it sounds like a very interesting concept. We will see if it gains momentum.
I am always open and interested in alternative methods and ideas. But one must be careful to stay cool about them and not praise them before they have not proved themselves.
If you put yourself into the shoes of a court judge, how could you work with such formulated sentence?
"A murderer is someone not liked who has unjustly killed someone who was liked by another"
Is the term "not liked" including you yourself as a judge? How can you possibly know to like or dislike a stranger? If a person is being in court and stands in front of you, would you want to first find out if you like or dislike that person?
As a judge (or as logiczombie) you anyway can't help to like or dislike someone at first glance, don't you? You can do nothing about it, since that is human nature to make quick judgments about a human beings appearance, race, sex, age, hight, haircut, fashion etc. etc.
Since that is common sense (being biased) it must not be the text of a law.
The law is still as correct as it can be (I am only talking about the copied sentence) - it needs no change, since it cannot cover each and every aspect of real time happenings. It includes important violations of principles.
What then is needed is the awareness of the judge that he himself will have some biases. As well as all others involved. The goal is to make them aware and bring them to the forefront to work with them openly. If you don't think that that is possible, further exchange of arguments might be difficult.
Trust in the law does not mean that I have blind trust in the people working with it. I separate the text from the people.
Furthermore this sentence already contains the verdict itself "unjustly" - such thing cannot be accepted in a law text, it leads it ad absurdum.
I haven't watched the video so far.
i wish it was "common sense"
an overwhelming majority of citizens believe that a judge can, in most, if not all cases, impartially follow the exact letter of the law
and i believe we've established that you and i agree this is technically impossible
so, in that case, it would seem that perhaps we could at least inject a bit more honesty into the equation
We did. There are solutions to that problem, though.
"better bias" ?
LoL
Aren't you in the search for said solutions? I had given you my own way of thinking/example of mediation practice in another thread.
You had given me the video with another concept of fair trials.
Our own influence on the things happening is limited, which leaves me with the insight that I can do so and so much. I need not to overburden myself.
Really, the overwhelming majority of people can believe what they want, since it's not them being a judge; it is more important that the judge had been educated in this manner, and I will give my right hand that this is the case. As soon as you start an education as a judge/lawyer and related professions (even in social work), you are confronted with the bias issue and you are being made aware of it through game-cases you play through. I've done it myself in class.
It's another issue when judges ignore their own bias and work unclean in that matter. For reasons, we can think of.
But "bias" itself is a hit-term and spread around the whole internet, so you cannot say it is not a well known phenomena. It's only that people like to attribute to themselves to be not biased, but then they lie.
Keep also in mind that we live in different countries and that our legal systems differ quite a lot. For example, we don't have juries but we have the "Schöffen", instead.
You don't need to have an official education in law and order for that position. There are other requirements but all in all you can apply for that position as an ordinary citizen. Just for info. Most people just don't know about it. I myself didn't know.
source (not in English)
judges reviewing petitions for parole
approve more requests within one hour of eating breakfast or lunch
Your point is that there can be no fairness if people allow their whims to influence their decisions. Do I see that correctly? I don't dispute that.
So that in some cases something turns out in people's favour and in others to their disadvantage, which may have nothing to do with the matter in and of itself.
We can cut our teeth on this topic. For now, what counts is how you and I make our own decisions and how we talk to each other.
What's your source for this?
semi-professional jurors
sounds like it could be a good idea