Thread: Discharge Without Conviction

Originally Posted by Nickoli

Looking forward to any response to this

But it is not the first time Winston has done this. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice...

Originally Posted by ebf

Moa Hunter, that is an interesting notion. So are you saying only firearms owners should be involved in drafting the contents of firearms law, or only motorists in the road transport act for instance ?

Maybe not all but the least they should have input and be taken seriously. (on both counts)

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

I did not mention Lee plainly because he has nothing to do with western democracy.

It's part of the commonwealth, and probably the most successful country to gain independence last century. They have some of the lowest crime rates on earth, maybe they are doing something right?

When we are talking about laws like victim's conduct mitigating factors for the purpose of sentencing

"She was wearing a short skirt, she was gagging for it your honour"

Originally Posted by Tommy

"She was wearing a short skirt, she was gagging for it your honour"

Simple, every judge will reject this submission. There is still "judging" in being a judge.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Strictly speaking, Law is not science, since it does not deal with things of objective truth, but more about things of human construct. I used the word "science" to get a point across.

I am not sure what you mean by "only" 1000 years old. 1000 years is a long time. When we are talking about laws like victim's conduct mitigating factors for the purpose of sentencing, what I want to remind people is that this law did not come into existence just now, just for Soe Bais. It has been around for a long time, and there would been scholars, lawyers, judges, and politicians debating extensively on something like this. So when you say I want this law changed, you probably need to first look at the debate that already occurred, consider the pros and cons that has already been debated and then decide or formulate some arguments to take the matter further.

I did not mention Lee plainly because he has nothing to do with western democracy.

[THAT] Legally educated people form large portion of politicians is not really because laws can be hard to decipher (although from time to time this could play a part). But it is mostly because, as this thread illustrates, legally trained people are able to better understand why we have the laws we have today, what considerations have been taken into account for the law to become what it is, and how the law should change to address a new problem, what will work and what will not work based on past considerations.

Further. legally trained people are often better at articulate [ARTICULATING] a view, with reference to relevant law/debate/public policy (which [IS], interestingly, also evidence [EVIDENT] in this thread), and [AT] deliver[ING] more comprehensible speeches. This makes them better at running for offices [ORIFICES]. Lincoln.

Only 1000 years? Law goes way further back, and that's just what's on record. Chronological snobbery is an apt term for our tendency to assume the ancients were stupid...because we somehow are more revolved or refined. Actually, we're degenerating, and our knowledge and technology is based on their work.

As for more articulate. Yes, talking a lot and "winning" debates. Did they also tell you on your first day at uni that you were the top two percent? They did at mine, and they were fundamentally mistaken. Humility is the first step to greatness yet they put an obstacle up for us on our first day in spite of our university's official motto, initium sapientiae timor domini. The blind leading the blind.

Originally Posted by Ultimitsu

Yes the Clintons are both legally educated, so is Obama. In fact Obama was a bit of a legal scholar, president of of the law review of the number 1 law school in the world.

Yet the Smartest President Evah failed to author even one paper* in the Harvard Law Review of the alleged 'Number 1 Law School in the World'. I guess you're right though, he's a very little bit of a legal scholar, say 3%.

*He did co-write a paper which stated Donald Trump was representing the American Dream...