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

[crazy canuck]

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

I think I disagree.

I am with Grumbler on this.  Much of my job entails advising people what the law is (ie what a court would likely rule given a certain set of facts).  That can be very difficult at times and often we cannot advise with 100% certainty what might happen due to the imprecise nature of law.

It is much easier to say what I think the result ought to be.

[Josephus]

Is it ferengi or latta law when you flat out lie about what people say in other threads?

I never liked the Ferengi. They are too capitalistic. And they have big ears.

[The Minsky Moment]

[Plea bargains are very rare in Poland and there is very little discretion in them. They are also a fairly recent introduction to Polish legal system and many people oppose them as an offense against justice and fairness.

Is there some other mechanism to encourage guilty pleas or the equivalent?

[Razgovory]

[Plea bargains are very rare in Poland and there is very little discretion in them. They are also a fairly recent introduction to Polish legal system and many people oppose them as an offense against justice and fairness.

Is there some other mechanism to encourage guilty pleas or the equivalent?

Torture.

[Ed Anger]

[Plea bargains are very rare in Poland and there is very little discretion in them. They are also a fairly recent introduction to Polish legal system and many people oppose them as an offense against justice and fairness.

Is there some other mechanism to encourage guilty pleas or the equivalent?

Torture.

Exposure to marti is a war crime. 

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

Americans have that problem already, what with 51+ jurisdictions to keep track of even before the RoTW comes into play.

[ulmont]

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

I think I disagree.

It is much easier to say what I think the result ought to be.

Much easier to say, yes.  Much easier to *convince someone else*?  I think not.

[The Brain]

The law should be like a wonderful garden.

[C.C.R.]

The law should be like a wonderful garden.

In the sense that you can pick & choose from many wonderful ingredients to ingest, or in the sense that you can kill all of the rabbits that you want without repercussions?

[The Brain]

The law should be like a wonderful garden.

In the sense that you can pick & choose from many wonderful ingredients to ingest, or in the sense that you can kill all of the rabbits that you want without repercussions?

Probably.

[C.C.R.]

Probably.

Indeed...

[crazy canuck]

Much easier to say, yes.  Much easier to *convince someone else*?  I think not.

I think I can easily convince you that the law ought to be fair, equitable etc etc etc.  What the law is in regarding to particular facts is realm of where disagreements occur.  Remember in the Common law, arguing about what the law is also coupled with what the law ought to be.  Good lawyers are always trying to move the law in favour of their clients in any given case.

[HisMajestyBOB]

The law should be like a wonderful garden.

Too much work to maintain and eventually it ends up overrun with weeds and forgotten?

[lustindarkness]

I'm sorry to tell you we will never stop doubting you are a lawyer simply because we know it bothers you.

[garbon]

The law should be like a wonderful garden.

As long as it isn't like the Secret Garden.