"willful and intentional" also applies to executioners and soldiers and cases of "self-defense"
"low motives" is quite vague
"maliciously or cruelly" could easily apply to executioners and soldiers and cases of "self-defense"
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".
Of course, the law is never exhaustively formulated; it can't. It has always exceptions to its rules.
Since it's cases which are under trial, the cases deliver the context.
Do you want to talk about something specific? I am not getting towards what you might aim.
if someone you dislike kills someone you like
that's "unjustified"
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"?
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
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