[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I want to address this. If you study laws and work with laws, you will see the entire world as it relates to laws. You may argue that all social norms are governed by laws. Someone who studies social behavior might argue that all laws are, or should be, governed by social norms. 

The legal profession is every bit as "ivory tower" as academia. I would not hold it up as an example of practicality.

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

[Barrister]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I want to address this. If you study laws and work with laws, you will see the entire world as it relates to laws. You may argue that all social norms are governed by laws. Someone who studies social behavior might argue that all laws are, or should be, governed by social norms. 

The legal profession is every bit as "ivory tower" as academia. I would not hold it up as an example of practicality.

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

[garbon]

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

That's why it is useful for people with ample time to make sure you don't trample rights because it was expedient.

[Barrister]

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

That's why it is useful for people with ample time to make sure you don't trample rights because it was expedient.

Au contraire - because you can't convict someone if you "trample on their rights", I spend a great deal of time ensuring that it doesn't happen.   

[Malthus]

Perhaps it just boils down to our professions - you're the ivory tower humanities intellectual, I'm the practical-minded trial Crown.   

I haven't had time to read the whole thread, but I want to address this. If you study laws and work with laws, you will see the entire world as it relates to laws. You may argue that all social norms are governed by laws. Someone who studies social behavior might argue that all laws are, or should be, governed by social norms. 

The legal profession is every bit as "ivory tower" as academia. I would not hold it up as an example of practicality.

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

I wasn't being entirely serious ... 

[Oexmelin]

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

Because, god knows, there are no gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity and breakdown in social norms or laws in historical sources. 

You seem to forget that the sort of documents you, CC and BB produce through your actions are the exact equivalent of the sources I use daily, from . Except that in mine, they use torture to extract testimonies (oh, wait...). 

[garbon]

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

That's why it is useful for people with ample time to make sure you don't trample rights because it was expedient.

Au contraire - because you can't convict someone if you "trample on their rights", I spend a great deal of time ensuring that it doesn't happen.   

If you can hide it you can.

Besides it doesn't have to be so overt. It could simply those on the ground asking for more government intrusion into individual's privacy.

[Barrister]

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

Because, god knows, there are no gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity and breakdown in social norms or laws in historical sources. 

You seem to forget that the sort of documents you, CC and BB produce through your actions are the exact equivalent of the sources I use daily, from . Except that in mine, they use torture to extract testimonies (oh, wait...). 

Okay, if we want to go down this road... 

you know I'm pretty blase by now about reading police reports and witness statements about some pretty horrible acts.

But when you have to put some battered wife up on the stand and ask her questions about how she was viciously beaten, or even better put a six year old on the stand and ask where her babysitter touched her... well it doesn't compare in terms of emotional impact to just reading about it.

[Barrister]

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

That's why it is useful for people with ample time to make sure you don't trample rights because it was expedient.

Au contraire - because you can't convict someone if you "trample on their rights", I spend a great deal of time ensuring that it doesn't happen.   

If you can hide it you can.

Besides it doesn't have to be so overt. It could simply those on the ground asking for more government intrusion into individual's privacy.

Nuts to that - hiding evidence is the kind of thing that'll get you fired PDQ.  Not worth my career over some scumbag going to jail or not.

[garbon]

I'm not that literally in the trenches. 

It's more than in my day to day prosecuting the issues are "how do we manage to convict this bad guy", "how can we keep this victim safe".  All very real people, in your face.  You rarely have the time (or the inclination) to sit abck and come up with grand statements of public policy.

That's why it is useful for people with ample time to make sure you don't trample rights because it was expedient.

Au contraire - because you can't convict someone if you "trample on their rights", I spend a great deal of time ensuring that it doesn't happen.   

If you can hide it you can.

Besides it doesn't have to be so overt. It could simply those on the ground asking for more government intrusion into individual's privacy.

Nuts to that - hiding evidence is the kind of thing that'll get you fired PDQ.  Not worth my career over some scumbag going to jail or not.

You only replied to one part and sorry but I don't have faith that everyone is saintly like you.  Not living in the city that I do where a police scandal is breaking out most months.

[Oexmelin]

you know I'm pretty blase by now about reading police reports and witness statements about some pretty horrible acts.

But when you have to put some battered wife up on the stand and ask her questions about how she was viciously beaten, or even better put a six year old on the stand and ask where her babysitter touched her... well it doesn't compare in terms of emotional impact to just reading about it.

Oh, I am sure. But you have that real experience to contrast it to. I can't afford to become blasé about the sources I read, because they are the main things I got - that, and my imagination, and my empathy. And then, the craft of the historian is precisely to try to gage how much analogies he can draw between the lived experience he can empathize with, and how much foreign they can be.

[Barrister]

you know I'm pretty blase by now about reading police reports and witness statements about some pretty horrible acts.

But when you have to put some battered wife up on the stand and ask her questions about how she was viciously beaten, or even better put a six year old on the stand and ask where her babysitter touched her... well it doesn't compare in terms of emotional impact to just reading about it.

Oh, I am sure. But you have that real experience to contrast it to. I can't afford to become blasé about the sources I read, because they are the main things I got - that, and my imagination, and my empathy. And then, the craft of the historian is precisely to try to gage how much analogies he can draw between the lived experience he can empathize with, and how much foreign they can be.

Fair point.

I think I have to become somewhat blase about my files, because it is the kind of job that can really wear you down if you allow yourself to.

[crazy canuck]

But Jacob's point (and mine) was precisely that people don't think about municipal bylaws when they urinate outdoors. They think about their companions, about the environment, about the time, about who is liable to see them, about what their mother would think, etc, etc, etc. And people also expect policemen to do the same, so that they do not indiscriminately arrest anyone who is urinating outside.

Exactly.

You might not consciously do so.  But the law preventing you form doing so has become normative and so even if you are ignorant of the law it has nontheless governed your behaviour.

[Malthus]

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

Because, god knows, there are no gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity and breakdown in social norms or laws in historical sources. 

You seem to forget that the sort of documents you, CC and BB produce through your actions are the exact equivalent of the sources I use daily, from . Except that in mine, they use torture to extract testimonies (oh, wait...). 

As I said, I wasn't being entirely serious (well, except about the budget meetings  ), but surely seeing stuff happen in real life and being a part of the process is different from simply reading about it? We are all big readers here, but I would never claim that reading everything about, say, the Battle of Kursk (horrid as that was) is the equivalent of actually serving in an army, an experience I've not had - no matter how good one's imagination and empathy is, there is gonna be a distance, a detachment, from being at second hand.

That's why, for example, I early established I would not do family law - too emotional, too draining for the likes of me. I dunno about criminal.

[Barrister]

I think his point is that, as a Crown, he sees a lot more gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity, caused by a breakdown of either social norms or laws than a professor generally would (outside of a tenure or budget meeting, of course!  ).

Because, god knows, there are no gritty and nasty things, terrible acts of violence and inhumanity and breakdown in social norms or laws in historical sources. 

You seem to forget that the sort of documents you, CC and BB produce through your actions are the exact equivalent of the sources I use daily, from . Except that in mine, they use torture to extract testimonies (oh, wait...). 

As I said, I wasn't being entirely serious (well, except about the budget meetings  ), but surely seeing stuff happen in real life and being a part of the process is different from simply reading about it? We are all big readers here, but I would never claim that reading everything about, say, the BattleO of Kursk (horrid as that was) is the equivalent of actually serving in an army, an experience I've not had - no matter how good one's imagination and empathy is, there is gonna be a distance, a detachment, from being at second hand.

That's why, for example, I early established I would not do family law - too emotional, too draining for the likes of me. I dunno about criminal.

Having done both, nothing is as bad as family law.