Law: Understanding the difference between what the law is and what it should be

[Valmy]

I guess I follow in the footsteps of other lawyers, such as Robespierre or Lenin, in my reformatory zeal.

And work pro bono?

[Barrister]

Funny, I am the opposite - I find debates on what the law should be vastly more interesting than arguing over the implications of what it actually is.

How can anyone say that the fundamental rules by which we organize our society are uninteresting, or even less interesting, than the details about how we apply the laws put down by others?

Perhaps this is the very definition of the "conservative".

I'll backtrack on my statement slightly.  I am interested and involved in the political process, so I do get interested on possible changes to the law.  I have had opportunity to make policy-type arguments in court about what the law should be.

But it's all fairly tightly constrained within what the existing law is, and what changes might be reasonably possible to implement.  So it's fascinating to debate exactly what restrictions should be imposed on a sex offender.  I don't find it nearly as interesting to go further back and say 'well these people shouldn't have been sex offenders in the first place'.

You can talk about the "fundamental rules by which we organize society", but I suppose that's exactly it.  Those fundamental rules don't change.  So if talking about a western parliamentary democracy and some issue comes up, and then someone chimes in about how Marx had it right, well, that's great the person thinks that way, but it just can't be debated.

[ulmont]

It is easier to convince someone what the law should say than what it does say. 

I think I disagree.

If success in convincing is your measure of achievement, though, you are probably in the wrong forum. 

Yes.  I'm just here for the insults and Ukrainian sand animation.

[Martinus]

I guess I follow in the footsteps of other lawyers, such as Robespierre or Lenin, in my reformatory zeal.

And work pro bono?

Actually I joined the post graduate human rights course this autumn/winter with the aim of eventually starting a revolution and drowning Poland in blood working pro bono.

[Caliga]

Actually I joined the post graduate human rights course this autumn/winter with the aim of eventually starting a revolution and drowning Polish catholicism in blood working pro bono.

Your post was more worthy before you edited it. 

[Martinus]

Funny, I am the opposite - I find debates on what the law should be vastly more interesting than arguing over the implications of what it actually is.

How can anyone say that the fundamental rules by which we organize our society are uninteresting, or even less interesting, than the details about how we apply the laws put down by others?

Perhaps this is the very definition of the "conservative".

I'll backtrack on my statement slightly.  I am interested and involved in the political process, so I do get interested on possible changes to the law.  I have had opportunity to make policy-type arguments in court about what the law should be.

But it's all fairly tightly constrained within what the existing law is, and what changes might be reasonably possible to implement.  So it's fascinating to debate exactly what restrictions should be imposed on a sex offender.  I don't find it nearly as interesting to go further back and say 'well these people shouldn't have been sex offenders in the first place'.

You can talk about the "fundamental rules by which we organize society", but I suppose that's exactly it.  Those fundamental rules don't change.  So if talking about a western parliamentary democracy and some issue comes up, and then someone chimes in about how Marx had it right, well, that's great the person thinks that way, but it just can't be debated.

The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that with people coming from a multitude of jurisdictions, it is often quite futile.

[Martinus]

Actually I joined the post graduate human rights course this autumn/winter with the aim of eventually starting a revolution and drowning Polish catholicism in blood working pro bono.

Your post was more worthy before you edited it. 

I edited it back - I just thought that "bathing in blood" was an incorrect expression.

[Caliga]

I edited it back - I just thought that "bathing in blood" was an incorrect expression.

Drowning Poland in blood is the part that gave me a stiffy.

[Razgovory]

Perhaps this is the very definition of the "conservative".

I don't think so.

[C.C.R.]

The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that with people coming from a multitude of jurisdictions, it is often quite futile.

Disagree.  The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that people have different definitions about what a "Debate" actually is...

[Caliga]

The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that with people coming from a multitude of jurisdictions, it is often quite futile.

Disagree.  The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that people have different definitions about what a "Debate" actually is...

A little bit from Column A, a little bit from Column B.

[dps]

Beeb's job is to uphold the current law. His understanding of them and his training in what they are is the reason he's good at his job.

Do we have any evidence of that?   

See, I look at the "Are you sure you're a lawyer" comments that Marty gets and what I just posted about BB as more-or-less friendly kidding around.  But Marty gets it all the time, while I think I'm pretty much the only one who makes posts implying or outright stating that BB isn't very good at his job, so there's probably more to it.

[Ed Anger]

The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that with people coming from a multitude of jurisdictions, it is often quite futile.

Disagree.  The problem with debating what the law is on a forum like Languish is that people have different definitions about what a "Debate" actually is...

What is this 'debate' thing you people are talking about? I'm right and everybody else is wrong. Let's talk about the weather.

[Ed Anger]

In my opinion, it should be legal for me to rip the arms off of my daughters' dates & beat the boys silly if I feel that They Cross The Line.

I'd vote for that.

[Barrister]

Beeb's job is to uphold the current law. His understanding of them and his training in what they are is the reason he's good at his job.

Do we have any evidence of that?   

You have: my good word.