|
15 Dec 02 - 01:36 AM (#847639) Subject: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: katlaughing FWIW, I found this of interest. Taken from a novel which takes place during Victorian times: We should respect not only the facts but the law. If we do not, then we lay ourselves open to every man's judgment of what may be true or false; and a belief in guilt will become the same thing as proof. There must be something above individual judgment, however passionately felt, or we become barbarous again. |
|
15 Dec 02 - 03:16 AM (#847649) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: DMcG I'm not sure what TFTD means. There is, in my view, an important distinction between the respecting the law as a whole and respecting every individual law. One refers to supporting the concept that we are in a social agreement whereby some of our liberties are traded to increase our overall security and wellbeing; the other, for example, enabled some Victorians to argue the law was wrong denying women the vote. |
|
15 Dec 02 - 03:22 AM (#847650) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: DMcG TFTD is Thought for the day, of course. I'm not that good at '88K on a P' quizzes either! |
|
16 Dec 02 - 01:16 AM (#848104) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: GUEST Nice, Kat. Can you give us a source citation? |
|
16 Dec 02 - 10:45 AM (#848163) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: katlaughing Thanks, it's from A Dangerous Mourning by Anne Perry. DMcG, thanks for your comments. I am sorry. PeterT used to do Thought for the Days during the week and I did them on the weekends and I think we both spelled it out. But after searching through a couple of years worth of mine to put together a collection, I found it would have been a lot easier if I'd put something about the subject in the title, so I abbreviated it. Glad you figured it out!**bg**=**Big Grin** kat |
|
16 Dec 02 - 02:06 PM (#848314) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: pavane Just a note: There have been many instances in which the (individual) law has been so obviously unjust that people have been obliged to oppose it. The 'rule of law' should allow for such cases to be argued. |
|
16 Dec 02 - 02:18 PM (#848322) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: Amos Any rule of law must have a process in it for (a) honoring exceptions in the light of higher principles and (b) recognizing the relative importances that make some laws "higher-level" than others -- for example, the Bill of Rights. Arguments about "necessity" because of short term concerns can be used to violate these two intersecting requirememnts, to the detriment of the civilization as a whole, usually. One of the things which provides for (a) in our basic system is the peer-process of judgement, the jury system. However, because our legal system has grown so adversarial, the principles of evidence have yielded to the principle of adversarial weight and force, where truth, justice and principle all take second place to the debating talent of professional liars. A |
|
16 Dec 02 - 03:44 PM (#848351) Subject: RE: BS: TFTD - Facts & Law - 15 Dec. 2002 From: DMcG While I agree with Amos, there is also the problem that 'factual' evidence is becoming increasingly difficult to understand for tne non-specialist. I am thinking about DNA testing in particular, where the 'professional liar' can easily mislead the nonspecialised jurors who may not understand how things like correlated traits and the effects of localized groups can lead to differences of many millions in the likelihood the DNA is or is not from the accused, victim or bystander. What the solution to this is, I don't know, but I am certain it is not to trust the professionals more! |