Ok, so I decided to make this thread because frankly sometimes I feel like I'm running into a wall, especially with some American posters. I don't know if this is because they are particularly dense, or this is some aspect of American mentality I just can't seem to get around.
Anyway, the deal is.
When talking about law, you can be talking about what the law is (this is the so called argument de lege lata) or you could be talking about what the law should be (this is the so called argument de lege ferenda). Often, when I postulate something de lege ferenda I meet with a response that obviously I don't know what the law is because this is not what the law really is - this response is obviously quite orthogonal to the statement I am making, so it leaves me obviously quite puzzled and perplexed.
I came to think of law as something that is constantly modified and changed via the legislature but it seems that some of our American posters are unable to understand this.
What gives?
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
I came to think of law as something that is constantly modified and changed via the legislature but it seems that some of our American posters are unable to understand this.
What gives?
They don't like you and are trolling you?
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
The recent example is the sex offender thread.
I said that I don't think people who have sex with a minor while they are themselves minors should be convicted for sexual offences. This is quite obviously a de lege ferenda statement, i.e. that I think that's how law should be constructed.
But to this I get offensive and insulting responses from Berkut and Strix, stating that obviously I'm a shitty lawyer because (I assume, since they do not go into detail why the think so) that's not how the law really is.
:huh:
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:54:52 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
I came to think of law as something that is constantly modified and changed via the legislature but it seems that some of our American posters are unable to understand this.
What gives?
They don't like you and are trolling you?
Oh ok. :(
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
Yeah that is not it. Marty will say something like 'the law should say 'X' and it sucks that is says 'Y'"
and then somebody will respond like 'Are you sure you are a lawyer? You suck!'
Which I don't get really...we can change laws from 'X' to 'Y' just fine in Common Law systems.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:56:09 AM
The recent example is the sex offender thread.
I said that I don't think people who have sex with a minor while they are themselves minors should be convicted for sexual offences. This is quite obviously a de lege ferenda statement, i.e. that I think that's how law should be constructed.
But to this I get offensive and insulting responses from Berkut and Strix, stating that obviously I'm a shitty lawyer because (I assume, since they do not go into detail why the think so) that's not how the law really is.
:huh:
Is it ferengi or latta law when you flat out lie about what people say in other threads?
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
Yeah that is not it. Marty will say something like 'the law should say 'X' and it sucks that is says 'Y'"
Except in this case, that isn't at all what he said.
He said someone should not be convicted of something, even though it was illegal. Didn't say a word about changing any laws, or that the law should say X instead of Y.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
Yeah that is not it. Marty will say something like 'the law should say 'X' and it sucks that is says 'Y'"
Except in this case, that isn't at all what he said.
He said someone should not be convicted of something, even though it was illegal. Didn't say a word about changing any laws, or that the law should say X instead of Y.
No I didn't say this. Maybe my post was ambiguous, but my intention was to say that I don't think a situation like this should be illegal.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
When talking about law, you can be talking about what the law is (this is the so called argument de lege lata) or you could be talking about what the law should be (this is the so called argument de lege ferenda). Often, when I postulate something de lege ferenda I meet with a response that obviously I don't know what the law is because this is not what the law really is - this response is obviously quite orthogonal to the statement I am making, so it leaves me obviously quite puzzled and perplexed.
I find that one has to be extremely explicit as to when you are postulating something.
The
ferenda /
lata distinction *should* come up a lot in arguments about American Constitutional Law, but people have a regrettable tendency to argue as if their particular beliefs were the law. Reading screeds on the Commerce Clause or the 10th Amendment may have poisoned this well.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:02:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:01:09 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
Yeah that is not it. Marty will say something like 'the law should say 'X' and it sucks that is says 'Y'"
Except in this case, that isn't at all what he said.
He said someone should not be convicted of something, even though it was illegal. Didn't say a word about changing any laws, or that the law should say X instead of Y.
No I didn't say this. Maybe my post was ambiguous, but my intention was to say that I don't think a situation like this should be illegal.
I know - to be honest, my post in that thread really was some mild trolling of you. I know what you meant.
I could just tell that Strix was getting to you, so I took the cheap shot. Mea Culpa. Sometimes you are just too easy to resist.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:56:09 AM
The recent example is the sex offender thread.
I said that I don't think people who have sex with a minor while they are themselves minors should be convicted for sexual offences. This is quite obviously a de lege ferenda statement, i.e. that I think that's how law should be constructed.
But to this I get offensive and insulting responses from Berkut and Strix, stating that obviously I'm a shitty lawyer because (I assume, since they do not go into detail why the think so) that's not how the law really is.
:huh:
Because your statement is a dead-end in terms of discussion -- you're just stating your opinion. 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. There is of course no direct counter to my opinion because, like, it's only my opinion, Man, so the only courses to take in furthering any kind of conversation along those lines would be:
1) Try to sincerely change my opinion, which would be a waste of time because pretty much everybody here would understand that I'm at best exagerating & at worst trolling, or
2) Point out that it is patently illegal for me to rip the arms off of my daughters' dates & beat the boys silly, and then put the onus on me to make a case as to why I think that the status quo should be changed to allow such behavior to be illegal
It's not so much that people don't understand that you're positing your opinion, it's just that they don't care & it's more fun to rip on you...
:hug:
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
Yeah that is not it. Marty will say something like 'the law should say 'X' and it sucks that is says 'Y'"
and then somebody will respond like 'Are you sure you are a lawyer? You suck!'
Which I don't get really...we can change laws from 'X' to 'Y' just fine in Common Law systems.
You sure? His opening post reflects more Civil law thinking then Common Law.
Quote
I came to think of law as something that is constantly modified and changed via the legislature but it seems that some of our American posters are unable to understand this.
In Common law countries it's more usual for the judges to modify the law by precedent rather then having the legislature do so.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
I came to think of law as something that is constantly modified and changed via the legislature but it seems that some of our American posters are unable to understand this.
What gives?
You make lots of statements like "this would never happen in Poland" when it obviously would. You then claim that you are referring to hypothetical laws that don't actually exist, and blaming others for responding to your statement according to the words you use, rather than what you later claim you meant.
What gives?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 10:16:39 AM
You sure? His opening post reflects more Civil law thinking then Common Law.
In Common law countries it's more usual for the judges to modify the law by precedent rather then having the legislature do so.
It is rare for judges to broadly "modify" the law in the US. It is common for judges to read a law narrowly to avoid a constitutional problem, to strike a law down because of a constitutional problem, or to interpret an ambiguous provision, but "modifying" doesn't happen a lot, and legislatures pass laws all the time.
I think Raz may be on to something, nonetheless. For example, many American posters think in terms of a "living law" theory, formulated by Dworkin who said that law is "what lawyers and judges do". Plea bargains, ordinary judges striking down laws as unconstitutional, a high level of discretion given to prosecutors whether to bring charges against someone - this all seems quite normal to Americans, but make me positively cringe as a European/continental lawyer.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
I think Raz may be on to something, nonetheless. For example, many American posters think in terms of a "living law" theory, formulated by Dworkin who said that law is "what lawyers and judges do".
Well, yes. The whole point of advising a client regarding the law is to tell them what a judge/jury would likely do, after all.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
Plea bargains, ordinary judges striking down laws as unconstitutional, a high level of discretion given to prosecutors whether to bring charges against someone - this all seems quite normal to Americans, but make me positively cringe as a European/continental lawyer.
You do know Poland has plea bargains? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917922
And the ordinary judges are just the first step in the process of declaring a law unconstitutional, which often ends up at the US Supreme Court (which might as well be considered a Constitutional Tribunal).
I think you're exaggerating the differences.
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 29, 2009, 10:07:38 AM
Because your statement is a dead-end in terms of discussion -- you're just stating your opinion.
This is actually a very insightful post.
Now I've never said to Marty "are you sre you're a lawyer", because I know he is. But I don't find debates about what the law
should be to be all that interesting. BY now I know what everyone's ideal policies and politics are, and there's no point in debating them.
But a lot of very interesting legal debates or legal issues do come up. I like debating those. But I find it utterly pointless for someone to then chime in and argue from first principles about how the government shouldn't be involved at all (to take just one example).
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 10:37:19 AM
But I don't find debates about what the law should be to be all that interesting.
:yes:
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".
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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?
You just open your mouth and words come out. It's easy; took me less than 10 seconds to say "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 other."
More basically, though, as Barrister and CCR pointed out, the chances you're going to change someone else's mind on what the fundamental rules by which we organize our society should be are low, leaving you only the options of agreeing to disagree or fighting (the latter somewhat difficult to bring to a satisfactory conclusion via the Internet).
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
Perhaps this is the very definition of the "conservative".
Considering Barrister was on the other side of this argument from you, I doubt it.
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 10:34:53 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
I think Raz may be on to something, nonetheless. For example, many American posters think in terms of a "living law" theory, formulated by Dworkin who said that law is "what lawyers and judges do".
Well, yes. The whole point of advising a client regarding the law is to tell them what a judge/jury would likely do, after all.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:27:45 AM
Plea bargains, ordinary judges striking down laws as unconstitutional, a high level of discretion given to prosecutors whether to bring charges against someone - this all seems quite normal to Americans, but make me positively cringe as a European/continental lawyer.
You do know Poland has plea bargains? http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=917922
And the ordinary judges are just the first step in the process of declaring a law unconstitutional, which often ends up at the US Supreme Court (which might as well be considered a Constitutional Tribunal).
I think you're exaggerating the differences.
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.
Also about the point of advising - this is another cultural thing. In fact, some continental lawyers, especially in Germany, see it as beneath their dignity to advise a client what a court is likely to do - their opinions are perfect academic dissertations on what the law SAYS based on fairly formal interpretation tools. :)
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 10:37:19 AM
Now I've never said to Marty "are you sre you're a lawyer", because I know he is.
Yeah. I really wish those ad homs would stop. At the very least, they add NOTHING to any thread in which they are continually brought up and flung against him.
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 10:48:51 AM
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 10:37:19 AM
Now I've never said to Marty "are you sre you're a lawyer", because I know he is.
Yeah. I really wish those ad homs would stop. At the very least, they add NOTHING to any thread in which they are continually brought up and flung against him.
While this is certainly true, Marty is the very last (well, maybe second to last) person to complain about nasty personal comments directed at him in lie of actual arguments.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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?
I agree. Laws are much less interesting than the principals that those laws are supposed to embody.
I suppose lawyers are more interested in the law than the theory of the law, because nobody pays them (unless they are professors) to address the theory of the law. :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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".
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. What the law currently says is basically what he does with his life. So, yeah, it's not that surprising that it interests him more than what the law hypothetically should be. He's got an interest in the status quo. (I don't mean that pejoratively.)
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 10:48:20 AM
More basically, though, as Barrister and CCR pointed out, the chances you're going to change someone else's mind on what the fundamental rules by which we organize our society should be are low, leaving you only the options of agreeing to disagree or fighting (the latter somewhat difficult to bring to a satisfactory conclusion via the Internet).
It is easier to convince someone what the law should say than what it does say.
If success in convincing is your measure of achievement, though, you are probably in the wrong forum. :cool:
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:50:31 AM
While this is certainly true, Marty is the very last (well, maybe second to last) person to complain about nasty personal comments directed at him in lie of actual arguments.
This is true.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 09:57:29 AM
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 09:56:03 AM
Maybe cause we Americans come from the Common Law tradition and you come from the Roman Law tradition?
Yeah that is not it. Marty will say something like 'the law should say 'X' and it sucks that is says 'Y'"
and then somebody will respond like 'Are you sure you are a lawyer? You suck!'
Which I don't get really...we can change laws from 'X' to 'Y' just fine in Common Law systems.
Here is an example that I think is relatively 'clean' and worth bringing up.
I recall a thread about illegal immigration from like six months back where the US govt. was going to deport some Mexican kid who'd lived in the US for virtually his entire life. I think Marti started the thread and basically stated it was horrifying.
You and I both responded that, while it was a horrible situation, the law is the law and until such time as the law is changed the kid needed to be deported. I think I used the same thread to voice my objection to our immigration laws--which I personally think are much too restrictive. I would be in favor of a virtually open border with Mexico. But until such time as we have that law changed, the government is obligated to act on the law as written.
The problem with "what the law should be" lines of reasoning is that they lead to selective law enforcement, which basically leads to a breakdown of public order. If the public decides that it now hates an existing law, that's great, and there's a clear process to follow in order to change it.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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 guess I'm with Berkut on this one. I know what the law is, and I find a lot of it fairly stupid. :P
I guess I follow in the footsteps of other lawyers, such as Robespierre or Lenin, in my reformatory zeal. ;)
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
I guess I follow in the footsteps of other lawyers, such as Robespierre or Lenin, in my reformatory zeal. ;)
And work pro bono?
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
It is easier to convince someone what the law should say than what it does say.
I think I disagree.
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
If success in convincing is your measure of achievement, though, you are probably in the wrong forum. :cool:
Yes. I'm just here for the insults and Ukrainian sand animation.
Quote from: Valmy on September 29, 2009, 10:59:16 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:56:41 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:01:53 AM
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. :(
Quote from: Barrister on September 29, 2009, 10:59:52 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
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.
Quote from: Caliga on September 29, 2009, 11:03:13 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:01:53 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:04:45 AM
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. :)
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 10:45:09 AM
Perhaps this is the very definition of the "conservative".
I don't think so.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:03:37 AM
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...
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 29, 2009, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:03:37 AM
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...
:lol: A little bit from Column A, a little bit from Column B.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 29, 2009, 10:53:14 AM
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? :P
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.
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 29, 2009, 11:09:27 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:03:37 AM
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.
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 29, 2009, 10:07:38 AM
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.
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2009, 11:39:04 AM
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on September 29, 2009, 10:53:14 AM
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? :P
You have: my good word. -_-
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
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.
Quote from: Berkut on September 29, 2009, 09:58:44 AM
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.
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
[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?
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
[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.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 29, 2009, 12:36:17 PM
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 29, 2009, 12:33:48 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 10:48:46 AM
[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. :mad:
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 11:03:37 AM
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.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 29, 2009, 12:31:18 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 11:00:32 AM
Quote from: grumbler on September 29, 2009, 10:53:38 AM
It is easier to convince someone what the law should say than what it does say.
I think I disagree.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 29, 2009, 12:31:18 PM
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 law should be like a wonderful garden.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2009, 01:03:07 PM
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?
:huh:
Quote from: C.C.R. on September 29, 2009, 01:05:41 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2009, 01:03:07 PM
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?
:huh:
Probably.
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 12:57:04 PM
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.
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2009, 01:03:07 PM
The law should be like a wonderful garden.
Too much work to maintain and eventually it ends up overrun with weeds and forgotten?
I'm sorry to tell you we will never stop doubting you are a lawyer simply because we know it bothers you. :)
Quote from: The Brain on September 29, 2009, 01:03:07 PM
The law should be like a wonderful garden.
As long as it isn't like the Secret Garden.
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on September 29, 2009, 01:19:09 PM
Too much work to maintain and eventually it ends up overrun with weeds and forgotten?
Perhaps you are just jaded or being an ass, but it is rather clear that the garden you describe would not be full of wonder.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 29, 2009, 01:14:42 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 12:57:04 PM
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.
Actually, I think that there is probably pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes, but some fairly significant differences of opinion as to appropriate punishments for various crimes.
There's a lot less agreement on matters regarding civil law.
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2009, 03:02:38 PM
Actually, I think that there is probably pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes, but some fairly significant differences of opinion as to appropriate punishments for various crimes.
I agree. But when you say there is disagreement over what an appropriate punishment ought to be you are talking about specific cases. As a general matter I think that we can probably generally agree that sentencing in criminal cases should be left to the Court hearing the case within boundaries set by the criminal laws of that jurisdiction.
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 29, 2009, 03:54:57 PM
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2009, 03:02:38 PM
Actually, I think that there is probably pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes, but some fairly significant differences of opinion as to appropriate punishments for various crimes.
I agree. But when you say there is disagreement over what an appropriate punishment ought to be you are talking about specific cases. As a general matter I think that we can probably generally agree that sentencing in criminal cases should be left to the Court hearing the case within boundaries set by the criminal laws of that jurisdiction.
Well, actually I was thinking about debates over the death penalty, and things like a life sentence meaning "imprisoned for the rest of your life" vs. "out if 5-10 with good behavior".
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2009, 04:01:09 PM
Well, actually I was thinking about debates over the death penalty, and things like a life sentence meaning "imprisoned for the rest of your life" vs. "out if 5-10 with good behavior".
Ok, but I think about those things as public policy issues that have very clear answers as to what the law is.
What I am talking about legal debate regarding what the law is. In that context it is very hard to convince someone what the law is in any given case. Indeed my whole career is build on that difficulty.
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2009, 03:02:38 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on September 29, 2009, 01:14:42 PM
Quote from: ulmont on September 29, 2009, 12:57:04 PM
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.
Actually, I think that there is probably pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes, but some fairly significant differences of opinion as to appropriate punishments for various crimes.
There's a lot less agreement on matters regarding civil law.
It doesn't seem so; literally hundreds of millions of Westerners oppose draconian American-style drug laws. I would say that tens of millions of Westerners disagree with the way some sexual conduct is treated--not just in its punishment but criminalization. (And it is apparent the majority of us scoff at many traffic laws, whether we nominally agree with their terms or not. :P )
Quote from: dps on September 29, 2009, 03:02:38 PM
Actually, I think that there is probably pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes, but some fairly significant differences of opinion as to appropriate punishments for various crimes.
I disagree. Age of consent, drug use, prostitution, incest (to the extent it does not involve child abuse or coercion), gambling, abortion, euthanasia, hate speech and hate crimes are all criminal law issues that are differently approached in different parts of the West, and hotly debated throughout. Even homosexual sex was criminalized not so long ago in some Western countries. I think a claim that we have reached some sort of a global consensus on crime in the Western world is pretty untrue. In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 01:07:27 AM
Even homosexual sex was criminalized not so long ago in some Western countries
:rolleyes:
Garbon, smileys apart Martinus is quiet right on this one. There is no "pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes". Never has been in my memory, and probably never will be.
Just one hetero example: in one country law changes and prostitution becomes legal (Germany), a neighbor decides on the same field that clients commit the crime, not the prostitutes (Sweden), in others the opposite is true, in others both can be prosecuted...
And note that I didn't roll my eyes at his whole post. :P
Quote from: garbon on September 30, 2009, 01:55:09 AM
And note that I didn't roll my eyes at his whole post. :P
So from now on I should consider every situation in which you are not rolling your eyes to be your full endorsement? :P
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 01:56:58 AM
So from now on I should consider every situation in which you are not rolling your eyes to be your full endorsement? :P
No. After all, I don't respond to most of your posts. ;)
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 01:52:05 AM
Garbon, smileys apart Martinus is quiet right on this one. There is no "pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes". Never has been in my memory, and probably never will be.
Just one hetero example: in one country law changes and prostitution becomes legal (Germany), a neighbor decides on the same field that clients commit the crime, not the prostitutes (Sweden), in others the opposite is true, in others both can be prosecuted...
I am kinda curious as to why people would think an effective counter to the argument that there exists a "pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes" is the argument that it cannot be true because there is not
complete agreement. All of the arguments so far against dps's statement are, in fact, consistent with it. There is broad agreement, with the exceptions getting so much attention precisely because they are the exceptions. Euros get more upset about American laws on prostitution, for example, than Saudi laws on marriage, simply because they don't see the Saudi laws as a violation of "the consensus."
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 06:43:31 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 01:52:05 AM
Garbon, smileys apart Martinus is quiet right on this one. There is no "pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes". Never has been in my memory, and probably never will be.
Just one hetero example: in one country law changes and prostitution becomes legal (Germany), a neighbor decides on the same field that clients commit the crime, not the prostitutes (Sweden), in others the opposite is true, in others both can be prosecuted...
I am kinda curious as to why people would think an effective counter to the argument that there exists a "pretty general broad agreement in Western societies as to what acts criminal law should hold as crimes" is the argument that it cannot be true because there is not complete agreement. All of the arguments so far against dps's statement are, in fact, consistent with it. There is broad agreement, with the exceptions getting so much attention precisely because they are the exceptions. Euros get more upset about American laws on prostitution, for example, than Saudi laws on marriage, simply because they don't see the Saudi laws as a violation of "the consensus."
Well, obviously differences between the West and ROTW are even more pronounced. But that doesn't change the fact that the West is not in consensus about whether a lot of actions should be criminalized or not.
Incidentally, we were talking about criminal law, so not sure how exactly "Saudi laws on marriage" fit into it, unless marriage in Saudi Arabia is a crime.
Also, our posts were in response to dps's claim that views on criminal law are pretty uniform in the West, unlike views on civil law.
To me the opposite actually seems more true - after all, we do seem to have pretty similar views about the principles of the freedom of contracting, laws of inheritance, marriage, paternity, legal capacity, company law, compensation for harm etc., much more than we have about what should and should not be a crime, imo.
What M. said, Grumbler.
We don't agree, simple as that, and the differences between Western countries (and inside each of them) are deep and broad. To quote M. "Age of consent, drug use, prostitution, incest (to the extent it does not involve child abuse or coercion), gambling, abortion, euthanasia, hate speech and hate crimes are all criminal law issues that are differently approached in different parts of the West, and hotly debated throughout... In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics".
Quote from: Martinus on September 29, 2009, 09:53:44 AM
Ok, so I decided to make this thread because frankly sometimes I feel like I'm running into a wall, especially with some American posters. I don't know if this is because they are particularly dense, or this is some aspect of American mentality I just can't seem to get around.
Anyway, the deal is.
When talking about law, you can be talking about what the law is (this is the so called argument de lege lata) or you could be talking about what the law should be (this is the so called argument de lege ferenda). Often, when I postulate something de lege ferenda I meet with a response that obviously I don't know what the law is because this is not what the law really is - this response is obviously quite orthogonal to the statement I am making, so it leaves me obviously quite puzzled and perplexed.
I came to think of law as something that is constantly modified and changed via the legislature but it seems that some of our American posters are unable to understand this.
What gives?
Mostly trolling, I think. Also, sometimes you give the "spirit of the law" argument without referencing the "letter of the law" information, so we wonder where you're coming from- it can be hard to follow at times.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 07:04:00 AM
Well, obviously differences between the West and ROTW are even more pronounced. But that doesn't change the fact that the West is not in consensus about whether a lot of actions should be criminalized or not.
But that isn't the assertion, so the lack of consensus doesn't argue against the point. A "general agreement... in what should be criminalized" does exist in my opinion. If you look at the totality of the actions criminalized in the West, I would bet that 90+% of them are criminalized in 90+% of the countries making up the West. How that cannot be called a broad agreement is beyond me.
QuoteIncidentally, we were talking about criminal law, so not sure how exactly "Saudi laws on marriage" fit into it, unless marriage in Saudi Arabia is a crime.
So, to you, the only imaginable Saudi law regarding criminal acts concerning marriage are ones that criminalize marriage itself? This evidence that your imagination is so limited may help explain why you cannot understand why your silly assertions provoke hilarity.
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 07:14:10 AM
What M. said, Grumbler.
We don't agree, simple as that, and the differences between Western countries (and inside each of them) are deep and broad. To quote M. "Age of consent, drug use, prostitution, incest (to the extent it does not involve child abuse or coercion), gambling, abortion, euthanasia, hate speech and hate crimes are all criminal law issues that are differently approached in different parts of the West, and hotly debated throughout... In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics".
None of those issues are issues that involve "what acts criminal law should hold as crimes." I had thought this so obvious I never even responded to it, thinking no one would be fooled by this list.
The West generally agrees that sex with children below the age of consent should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some forms of drug use should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some activities associated with prostitution should be criminalized, but that prostitution itself should not.
The West generally agrees that some forms of incest should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some forms of gambling should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some types of abortion should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some types of hate speech should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some types of hate crimes should be criminalized.
Do you wish to dispute this?
The distinction isn't on what the laws should say/do, but how they are implemented (and they define the specific offense that most agree in principal should be criminalized) which is what dps was talking about.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 07:07:12 AM
Also, our posts were in response to dps's claim that views on criminal law are pretty uniform in the West, unlike views on civil law.
Ah, well, then you all should make that clear. My posts have nothing to do with civil law per se - in fact, I disagree - and since I brought up the argument, my point prevails! :P
dps was not making the claim that the laws were "pretty uniform." He was saying that there is a general consensus on what should be criminalized.
QuoteTo me the opposite actually seems more true - after all, we do seem to have pretty similar views about the principles of the freedom of contracting, laws of inheritance, marriage, paternity, legal capacity, company law, compensation for harm etc., much more than we have about what should and should not be a crime, imo.
I would agree that the specifics of civil law are even more agreed-upon than the specifics of criminal law, but I am not as certain the principles are. I would need to know a lot more about the different Euro civil law principles before I considered arguing this, though.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 09:27:38 AM
The West generally agrees that sex with children below the age of consent should be criminalized.
Yes but then defines the age of consent between 13 (or 12 - CBA to check) and 21. Then it provides various exceptions - based on age difference, marriage, etc. Remember, I am not saying that there is no consensus whatsoever but there is a lot of room for disagreement.
QuoteThe West generally agrees that some activities associated with prostitution should be criminalized, but that prostitution itself should not.
Again, not true. There are countries where prostitutes are criminalized, there are countries were prostitutes' clients are criminalized. There are countries (like Poland) where prostitution itself is legal, but being a pimp is not. Then there are countries where pretty much all activities associated with prostitution are permitted (of course I am excluding cases like coercion, but obviously you cannot treat them as "criminalizing activities associated with prostitution" any more than putting Polanski behind bars is "criminalization of some activities associated with filmmaking".
QuoteThe West generally agrees that some forms of incest should be criminalized.
Incest is already legal in some European countries - I assume it will be legal in more in future. Again, if it is illegal in these countries it is because it constitutes another crime (e.g. child abuse), not because it is criminalization of some forms of incest.
QuoteThe West generally agrees that some forms of gambling should be criminalized.
Not really - if something is criminalized, it is fraud.
QuoteThe West generally agrees that some types of abortion should be criminalized.
Again, you have late term vs. early term. "Social reasons" abortion, rape abortion, mother's health abortion etc. In some countries it is extremely restrictive. In others it is extremely liberal.
QuoteThe West generally agrees that some types of hate speech should be criminalized.
There is a huge difference between the US approach to free speech (with people like Westboro Baptist Church being allowed to picket funerals - this would be illegal in Europe) and criminalizing Holocaust denial even in the context of scientific research.
I noticed you omitted euthanasia.
Quote from: MartinusSurely you recognise the difference when both participants in the sex act are below the age of consent, right? Are they both then guilty of statutory rape?
I only question your field of expertise when you come out with statements like this that make you sound like you have never read penal law. I would expect a lawyer to understand the whole concept behind "statutory rape" and to understand that it is a clearly defined statute regarding who can consent, at what age, and the legal ramifications of age differences. And if you were offering an argument de lege ferenda than I would expect a lawyer to phrase their argument/question in a better constructed and more coherent fashion.
Granted, if you're not a criminal lawyer than perhaps you lack the courtroom experience to argue as well as those who do it on a daily basis. If that is the case though than it doesn't excuse your apparent inability to understand how a clearly defined statute is applied considering that civil law deals with a lot of clearly defined statutes.
I'd say what the real issue is, is, that no one on Languish has ever been wrong (in their own minds) ... I personally think this stems from the ineffectiveness of text communication. There is very little subtlety in text discussions. You can't get body language, and many posters are writing in their 2nd or 3rd languages.
I'm a much better conversationalist in real life, and that has a lot to do with being able to see, and sense who I'm talking to in real life. On the internet, I have only a person's writing style to go on.
Also often you are being trolled Marti, you should know by now that certain posters don't take you seriously, on purpose.
I had an old Batman comic where it showed Bruce Wayne in his college years debating with a professor about some case and Bruce Wayne says "But Dr... is that justice?" and the professor answers "No Mr. Wayne, that's the law."
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 12:24:43 PM
I'd say what the real issue is, is, that no one on Languish has ever been wrong (in their own minds) ... I personally think this stems from the ineffectiveness of text communication. There is very little subtlety in text discussions. You can't get body language, and many posters are writing in their 2nd or 3rd languages.
I'm a much better conversationalist in real life, and that has a lot to do with being able to see, and sense who I'm talking to in real life. On the internet, I have only a person's writing style to go on.
Also often you are being trolled Marti, you should know by now that certain posters don't take you seriously, on purpose.
I never use body language. I agree that the fact that we're writing in a 2nd or 3rd rate language has a negative effect though.
Quote from: Martinus on September 30, 2009, 09:44:46 AM
Yes but then defines the age of consent between 13 (or 12 - CBA to check) and 21. Then it provides various exceptions - based on age difference, marriage, etc. Remember, I am not saying that there is no consensus whatsoever but there is a lot of room for disagreement.
So you are conceding that dps is correct?
QuoteQuoteThe West generally agrees that some activities associated with prostitution should be criminalized, but that prostitution itself should not.
Again, not true. There are countries where prostitutes are criminalized, there are countries were prostitutes' clients are criminalized. There are countries (like Poland) where prostitution itself is legal, but being a pimp is not. Then there are countries where pretty much all activities associated with prostitution are permitted (of course I am excluding cases like coercion, but obviously you cannot treat them as "criminalizing activities associated with prostitution" any more than putting Polanski behind bars is "criminalization of some activities associated with filmmaking".
In what western countries is prostitution itself both criminalized and the laws enforced? Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the US. It is legal in Portugal, Spain, France, UK, Italy, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia...
Are you sure you want to argue that this is not a "general agreement?"
QuoteQuoteThe West generally agrees that some forms of incest should be criminalized.
Incest is already legal in some European countries - I assume it will be legal in more in future. Again, if it is illegal in these countries it is because it constitutes another crime (e.g. child abuse), not because it is criminalization of some forms of incest.
Being legal or illegal "in some countries" mere disproves absolute agreement, not general agreement.
QuoteNot really - if something is criminalized, it is fraud.
Not really. Some forms of gambling are illegal in almost all Western countries.
QuoteAgain, you have late term vs. early term. "Social reasons" abortion, rape abortion, mother's health abortion etc. In some countries it is extremely restrictive. In others it is extremely liberal.
Exactly - there is general agreement on the basics, with differences in the details, which is just what dps and I are arguing, and you are arguing against. You cannot expect to use arguments that weaken your position to strengthen it!
QuoteThere is a huge difference between the US approach to free speech (with people like Westboro Baptist Church being allowed to picket funerals - this would be illegal in Europe) and criminalizing Holocaust denial even in the context of scientific research.
agree that the general agreement on the principals doesn't include agreement on the details. That is my point!
QuoteI noticed you omitted euthanasia.
Okay. The West generally agrees that some types of euthanasia should be criminalized.
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 12:24:43 PM
I'd say what the real issue is, is, that no one on Languish has ever been wrong (in their own minds) ... I personally think this stems from the ineffectiveness of text communication. There is very little subtlety in text discussions. You can't get body language, and many posters are writing in their 2nd or 3rd languages.
I thik that this is interesting, and telling, for two reasons: (1) you project your inability to admit that you are wrong to all of Languish, and (2) you attribute to the group your own shortcomings in perceiving meaning.
I admitted I was wrong on an issue as recently as yesterday, and generally I have little trouble understanding coherent arguments. Incoherent arguments would not be more coherent with body language, IMO.
QuoteI'm a much better conversationalist in real life, and that has a lot to do with being able to see, and sense who I'm talking to in real life. On the internet, I have only a person's writing style to go on.
I agree that this makes it harder to tell when someone is serious or not, but I don't think it has anything to do with recognizing and admitting when one is wrong.
QuoteAlso often you are being trolled Marti, you should know by now that certain posters don't take you seriously, on purpose.
This is true, to the extent that my trolls of Marti are direct responses to his trolls of the board. There are times when i am not trolling, though, because Marti says things so staggeringly emo or absurd that it really does make me question whether or not he is a lawyer (not having met him, like BB has, I don't know from direct knowledge). I recognize that getting a law degree does not take exceptional amounts of emotional stability or intelligence, but surely it requires minimum amounts!
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 02:29:54 PM
In what western countries is prostitution itself both criminalized and the laws enforced? Norway, Sweden, Iceland, the US.
Minor technical point - the United States does not criminalize prostitution, except indirectly through statutes like the Mann Act or RICO. Most but not all of the 50 states do criminalize prostitution, and in some of those, enforcement can be spotty.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
Minor technical point - the United States does not criminalize prostitution, except indirectly through statutes like the Mann Act or RICO. Most but not all of the 50 states do criminalize prostitution, and in some of those, enforcement can be spotty.
Prostitution is legal in Rhode Island, correct? Everyone seems to know about Clark County, Nevada (IIRC prostitution is only legal in 1 or 2 Nevada counties) but nobody ever seems to mention Rhode Island.
Quote from: Caliga on September 30, 2009, 03:06:01 PM
Prostitution is legal in Rhode Island, correct? Everyone seems to know about Clark County, Nevada (IIRC prostitution is only legal in 1 or 2 Nevada counties) but nobody ever seems to mention Rhode Island.
[insert wiki-accuracy disclaimer here]
Indoor prostitution. Brothels are illegal, but wiki claims police have been unsuccessful in shutting down "massage parlors" or "spas" operating as fronts. Streetwalking and hailing vehicles are illegal without noticeable loopholes. Also according to wiki, there's pending legislature; if they can agree on a combined bill, it'll go to the governor and indoor prostitution will once again be criminalized.
Either way, it's a far cry from Vegas' explicit permission and regulation of prostitution (I believe it's the city; counties and parishes have very, very limited ability to pass legislation, if at all).
Prostitution is illegal in Vegas.
Quote from: Berkut on September 30, 2009, 03:41:50 PM
Prostitution is illegal in Vegas.
You're right. Clark is actually one of the 5 counties in Nevada
without designated areas where a licensed brothel can be operated. Washoe County (Reno) has also criminalized it.
What I'm wondering about is when it was criminalized. I understand that Reno and Vegas have been making big pushes to attract more family tourism, but I remember hearing not so long ago that services in Vegas were pretty sympathetic towards prostitution; is that clandestine and just another obstacle in criminalization, though? :unsure:
Quote from: DontSayBanana on September 30, 2009, 03:49:20 PM
You're right. Clark is actually one of the 5 counties in Nevada without designated areas where a licensed brothel can be operated. Washoe County (Reno) has also criminalized it.
Oh, right. It's legal outside of Clark Co., on the outskirts of Vegas. :blush:
In Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal.
However solicitation for the purposes of prostitution living on the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, are all against the law.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 05:48:35 PM
In Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal.
However solicitation for the purposes of prostitution living on the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, are all against the law.
Does that apply only to third parties (ie. pimps) or to the prostitutes themselves?
Does this mean that it's alright to be a prostitute as long as it is a second job, with your main income (that which you "live on") coming from being a secretary, for example?
Hey, Languish is the place for "stupid questions", right?
Quote from: Agelastus on September 30, 2009, 06:12:55 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 05:48:35 PM
In Canada, prostitution is perfectly legal.
However solicitation for the purposes of prostitution living on the avails of prostitution, and keeping a common bawdy house, are all against the law.
Does that apply only to third parties (ie. pimps) or to the prostitutes themselves?
Does this mean that it's alright to be a prostitute as long as it is a second job, with your main income (that which you "live on") coming from being a secretary, for example?
Hey, Languish is the place for "stupid questions", right?
It means to live on the avails of a 3rd party.
However keeping a common bawdy house could apply to the prostitute themselves.
Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 06:33:34 PM
Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.
Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 06:33:34 PM
Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.
Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?
Are they allowed to? No.
Do they do so anyways using various euphemisms? Yes.
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 06:53:49 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 06:33:34 PM
Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.
Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?
Are they allowed to? No.
Do they do so anyways using various euphemisms? Yes.
1 hr/300 flowers.
Yeah.
What about the Asian, deep-tissue massage places...they're legit, right? :unsure:
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 07:14:10 AM
In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics".
Yes--of course the areas where there is no or little consensus make up a substantial part of political discourse and debate.
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 09:27:38 AM
Quote from: Alatriste on September 30, 2009, 07:14:10 AM
What M. said, Grumbler.
We don't agree, simple as that, and the differences between Western countries (and inside each of them) are deep and broad. To quote M. "Age of consent, drug use, prostitution, incest (to the extent it does not involve child abuse or coercion), gambling, abortion, euthanasia, hate speech and hate crimes are all criminal law issues that are differently approached in different parts of the West, and hotly debated throughout... In fact, these differences and disagreements make up a substantial part of our politics".
None of those issues are issues that involve "what acts criminal law should hold as crimes." I had thought this so obvious I never even responded to it, thinking no one would be fooled by this list.
The West generally agrees that sex with children below the age of consent should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some forms of drug use should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some activities associated with prostitution should be criminalized, but that prostitution itself should not.
The West generally agrees that some forms of incest should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some forms of gambling should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some types of abortion should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some types of hate speech should be criminalized.
The West generally agrees that some types of hate crimes should be criminalized.
Do you wish to dispute this?
The distinction isn't on what the laws should say/do, but how they are implemented (and they define the specific offense that most agree in principal should be criminalized) which is what dps was talking about.
I personally understood that we were referring to the West as in a collection of people, not a collection of states. As a collection of states, I think you're closer to the mark. As a collection of people--all of whom live in states that are
somewhat similar in their application of this idealized of "Western criminal law," but who in the aggregate are, imo, markedly divided in what acts or omissions they think should be criminal.
At any rate, I think that list is not as narrowly focused as it would need to be to determine whether there is marked disagreement amongst either states or people. Indeed, you could take that same list, and Saudi Arabia would pass as part of that "western consensus." The adjective "some" in each example contains great multitudes of real and substantial differences of application of law by the government and opinion about the law held by the governed .
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 30, 2009, 02:47:40 PM
Minor technical point - the United States does not criminalize prostitution, except indirectly through statutes like the Mann Act or RICO. Most but not all of the 50 states do criminalize prostitution, and in some of those, enforcement can be spotty.
Any prosecution, however slight, is sufficient to complete the
offense qualification.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2009, 09:58:12 PM
I personally understood that we were referring to the West as in a collection of people, not a collection of states. As a collection of states, I think you're closer to the mark. As a collection of people--all of whom live in states that are somewhat similar in their application of this idealized of "Western criminal law," but who in the aggregate are, imo, markedly divided in what acts or omissions they think should be criminal.
Really? You think that, if you took a poll, there would be more than 10% of the people of "the West" who disagreed about more than 10% of the proposed acts to be made illegal (not the specifics, but the acts)? We cannot know, of course, but I would be astonished. Think about all the acts that are illegal in your state. What percentage of them are legal (or does there exist a substantial population wanting to make them legal) anywhere in "the West?"
QuoteAt any rate, I think that list is not as narrowly focused as it would need to be to determine whether there is marked disagreement amongst either states or people. Indeed, you could take that same list, and Saudi Arabia would pass as part of that "western consensus." The adjective "some" in each example contains great multitudes of real and substantial differences of application of law by the government and opinion about the law held by the governed.
I agree, but it isn't my list, it is Marti's. It is, in fact, such an obviously useless list that I didn't even respond to it initially, assuming that everyone could see how unpersuasive it was... until Alariste alerted me that my assumption was wrong.
Quote from: Ideologue on September 30, 2009, 09:58:12 PM
Indeed, you could take that same list, and Saudi Arabia would pass as part of that "western consensus."
Don't think it would be that hard to come up with a list of criminal laws in Saudi Arabia that 99% of the West would consider beyond the pale.
Death penalty for apostasy, death penalty for (female) adultery, punishment by the lash for minor vice offenses like not wearing proper clothing, etc.
Raising SA it seems to me supports grumblers point that the differences within the West, while real, are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things.
I think we ought to go back to the Code of Hammurabi, personally.
If you build a building and it collapses.... DEATH PENALTY. :menace:
If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries.... TEN CENT FINE. :menace:
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 09:40:26 AM
I think we ought to go back to the Code of Hammurabi, personally.
If you build a building and it collapses.... DEATH PENALTY. :menace:
If you punch a pregnant woman in the stomach and she miscarries.... TEN CENT FINE. :menace:
10 cents? harsh. Himmler could take lessons from you.
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 09:41:30 AM
10 cents? harsh. Himmler could take lessons from you.
Well, to be fair, if the pregnant chick dies, the assailant's daughter is put to death. :)
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 30, 2009, 06:38:24 PM
Quote from: Barrister on September 30, 2009, 06:33:34 PM
Honestly it's all very convoluted and other than "solicitation for the purposes of prostitution" which is used to crack down on street walkers, I've never seen a charge under any of these sections.
Are hookers allowed to advertise/market in other ways, like the phone book or internet?
yes. the free urban weeklies have pages of their full colour ads. it's called "adult entertainment."
Quote from: grumbler on September 30, 2009, 02:38:31 PM
Quote from: BuddhaRhubarb on September 30, 2009, 12:24:43 PM
I'd say what the real issue is, is, that no one on Languish has ever been wrong (in their own minds) ... I personally think this stems from the ineffectiveness of text communication. There is very little subtlety in text discussions. You can't get body language, and many posters are writing in their 2nd or 3rd languages.
I thik that this is interesting, and telling, for two reasons: (1) you project your inability to admit that you are wrong to all of Languish, and (2) you attribute to the group your own shortcomings in perceiving meaning.
I admitted I was wrong on an issue as recently as yesterday, and generally I have little trouble understanding coherent arguments. Incoherent arguments would not be more coherent with body language, IMO.
QuoteI'm a much better conversationalist in real life, and that has a lot to do with being able to see, and sense who I'm talking to in real life. On the internet, I have only a person's writing style to go on.
I agree that this makes it harder to tell when someone is serious or not, but I don't think it has anything to do with recognizing and admitting when one is wrong.
QuoteAlso often you are being trolled Marti, you should know by now that certain posters don't take you seriously, on purpose.
This is true, to the extent that my trolls of Marti are direct responses to his trolls of the board. There are times when i am not trolling, though, because Marti says things so staggeringly emo or absurd that it really does make me question whether or not he is a lawyer (not having met him, like BB has, I don't know from direct knowledge). I recognize that getting a law degree does not take exceptional amounts of emotional stability or intelligence, but surely it requires minimum amounts!
how do you get that? I never admit being wrong? I'm pretty sure I do. Um as part of the whole of Languish am I (and you) not representative of Languish to at least some degree?
{edit}
hmm thinking about it actually I can see a bit of your point. I do pretty much always offer some sort of excuse when I'm being stupid or emotional or have bad information. But I'm pretty sure when it's actually demonstrated to me that I'm wrong and what the right information is, I like to think I can be humble. I'll try harder to backtrack less.{/edit}
....the part that you quote about conversational ability... how am I saying anything there about being right or wrong? I'm not. I'm simply saying what I wrote... all I have to go on in terms of tone is the words themselves. right or wrong only goes to how much I believe or already know what I read.
I should really just stop replying to your posts. I never quite get what you are wound up over. But that won't happen. :cheers:
If I go to any Western country I know generally what I can and cannot do without reading their criminal code. How do I know this? Because all Western countries generally make the same acts punishable by criminal sanction. Some of the detail is different but there is general agreement.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
If I go to any Western country I know generally what I can and cannot do without reading their criminal code. How do I know this? Because all Western countries generally make the same acts punishable by criminal sanction. Some of the detail is different but there is general agreement.
When I went to Denmark I streaked down the street, as I knew Europeans approve of that shit.
I've recently learned that the Danes approve of, and indeed encourage, unprotected sex with random American strangers as well.
Quote from: Caliga on October 01, 2009, 01:45:24 PM
I've recently learned that the Danes approve of, and indeed encourage, unprotected sex with random American strangers as well.
:lol:
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 01:29:07 PM
When I went to Denmark I streaked down the street, as I knew Europeans approve of that shit.
And you left some very unhappy Danes- when they said "streaking," they
didn't mean "leave a brown strip on the street". :P
Quote from: DontSayBanana on October 01, 2009, 09:08:28 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on October 01, 2009, 01:29:07 PM
When I went to Denmark I streaked down the street, as I knew Europeans approve of that shit.
And you left some very unhappy Danes- when they said "streaking," they didn't mean "leave a brown strip on the street". :P
:x
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
If I go to any Western country I know generally what I can and cannot do without reading their criminal code. How do I know this? Because all Western countries generally make the same acts punishable by criminal sanction. Some of the detail is different but there is general agreement.
Don't be so sure... For example, last year a pair of brainless teenagers (redundant, I know) vacationing somewhere in the Baltic, let's say Riga but I don't remember the place, decided it would be a great idea to climb a street lamp, tear down the small national flag hanging, and get a souvenir on the cheap. In the Day of Independence...
Result? Swiftly arrested and jailed on charges of robbery, public scandal and much worse, defiling the national symbols. They were shocked to learn some countries don't think burning the national flag is a right, and even less if you are a foreigner.
Let's just say the Spanish ambassador wasn't pleased, but he managed to secure a minimum sentence, rescue their sorry asses and pack them home after spending two or three weeks in a Lithuanian jail... and they were quite lucky to escape so lightly.
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 01:32:29 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 01, 2009, 01:25:10 PM
If I go to any Western country I know generally what I can and cannot do without reading their criminal code. How do I know this? Because all Western countries generally make the same acts punishable by criminal sanction. Some of the detail is different but there is general agreement.
Don't be so sure... For example, last year a pair of brainless teenagers (redundant, I know) vacationing somewhere in the Baltic, let's say Riga but I don't remember the place, decided it would be a great idea to climb a street lamp, tear down the small national flag hanging, and get a souvenir on the cheap. In the Day of Independence...
Result? Swiftly arrested and jailed on charges of robbery, public scandal and much worse, defiling the national symbols. They were shocked to learn some countries don't think burning the national flag is a right, and even less if you are a foreigner.
Let's just say the Spanish ambassador wasn't pleased, but he managed to secure a minimum sentence, rescue their sorry asses and pack them home after spending two or three weeks in a Lithuanian jail... and they were quite lucky to escape so lightly.
Not sure that most of us would really consider Lithuania to be part of the West. At any rate, I'd expect what they did to be a crime just about anywhere, though I would expect it to be a misdemeanor in most places in the West.
Also, if they burned the flag, how exactly was that getting a souvenir? Did they intend to keep the ashes or something?
Quote from: dps on October 02, 2009, 05:15:32 AM
Not sure that most of us would really consider Lithuania to be part of the West.
Maybe you guys should then define how you understand "West" in your statements. If you do not consider an European Union country to be a part of the West, your definition seems to vary wildly from a common understanding of the word, and perhaps that's where our misunderstanding comes from. :)
@dps, Marty
Good question... What's the West? I agree with Marty, if a democratic country, member of EU and NATO, doesn't belong to the West we have different meanings for the word.
No, they didn't burn the flag. I was making reference to the polemic about flag burning in the United States and Spain.
Flags are funny things, by the way... a few months ago we had another crazy incident in Spain. A foolish young angry radical (redundant, once again) climbed a government building to replace the national flag with the republican tricolor. He was of course arrested and brought to trial and some coworkers of mine that really should know better were saying he should be declared innocent because he was just expressing his opinions.
You should have seen their faces when I mentioned that, in that case, no one could be brought to trial for climbing a building in brown shirt and jackboots to hang the Nazi flag...
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 01:32:29 AM
Don't be so sure... For example, last year a pair of brainless teenagers (redundant, I know) vacationing somewhere in the Baltic, let's say Riga but I don't remember the place, decided it would be a great idea to climb a street lamp, tear down the small national flag hanging, and get a souvenir on the cheap. In the Day of Independence...
Result? Swiftly arrested and jailed on charges of robbery, public scandal and much worse, defiling the national symbols. They were shocked to learn some countries don't think burning the national flag is a right, and even less if you are a foreigner.
Let's just say the Spanish ambassador wasn't pleased, but he managed to secure a minimum sentence, rescue their sorry asses and pack them home after spending two or three weeks in a Lithuanian jail... and they were quite lucky to escape so lightly.
You still focus on the petty details and (apparently) argue that they are evidence of the lack of a general agreement on what activities should be criminalized.
You example merely demonstrates that some places regard theft as a worse crime than other places, but I will bet that, even in Spain, there is broad agreement that theft should be criminalized.
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2009, 05:18:04 AM
Maybe you guys should then define how you understand "West" in your statements. If you do not consider an European Union country to be a part of the West, your definition seems to vary wildly from a common understanding of the word, and perhaps that's where our misunderstanding comes from. :)
Maybe you guys should define what you understand "general agreement" to mean. If you think that petty differences disprove general agreement, then your understanding of the term varies wildly from the common understanding of the meaning of the term.
For "us guys," the West includes Western and Central Europe, the western hemisphere, Israel, Australia, and New Zealand. It includes all the countries on the shores of the Baltic bar Russia. The only Western Balkan country is Greece. South Africa is debatable (I don't include it myself, but don't object when others do).
:yes: Lithuania is definitely the West nowadays.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 08:29:21 AM
:yes: Lithuania is definitely the West nowadays.
We've lowered our standards...
<_<
Wait, which was the Baltic country with the hot chicks?
Quote from: PDH on October 02, 2009, 08:46:39 AM
Wait, which was the Baltic country with the hot chicks?
All of them, but especially Estonia.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 08:50:56 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 02, 2009, 08:46:39 AM
Wait, which was the Baltic country with the hot chicks?
All of them, but especially Estonia.
I will begin the process of Westernization ASAP.
Quote from: PDH on October 02, 2009, 08:56:56 AM
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 08:50:56 AM
Quote from: PDH on October 02, 2009, 08:46:39 AM
Wait, which was the Baltic country with the hot chicks?
All of them, but especially Estonia.
I will begin the process of Westernization ASAP.
Couldn't we just Westernize the hott chicks by importation & forget about the rest of the Baltic?
:P
Quote from: Martinus on October 02, 2009, 05:18:04 AM
Quote from: dps on October 02, 2009, 05:15:32 AM
Not sure that most of us would really consider Lithuania to be part of the West.
Maybe you guys should then define how you understand "West" in your statements. If you do not consider an European Union country to be a part of the West, your definition seems to vary wildly from a common understanding of the word, and perhaps that's where our misunderstanding comes from. :)
Former Soviet bloc is West Junior. You know that better than just about anyone here--and it's nothing to take personally. ;)
I do consider everything up to the Polish border and perhaps a bit beyond more-or-less Western, however. :hug: Lithuania is Western. Latvia and Estonia afaik still practice apartheid, so fuck them.
Let's just compromise and call it the mid-West. Poland even looks a little bit like Ohio.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 11:04:13 AM
Let's just compromise and call it the mid-West. Poland even looks a little bit like Ohio.
Wouldn't the idea of two mid-wests just confuse people...
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 01:32:29 AM
Don't be so sure... For example, last year a pair of brainless teenagers (redundant, I know) vacationing somewhere in the Baltic, let's say Riga but I don't remember the place, decided it would be a great idea to climb a street lamp, tear down the small national flag hanging, and get a souvenir on the cheap. In the Day of Independence...
Result? Swiftly arrested and jailed on charges of robbery, public scandal and much worse, defiling the national symbols. They were shocked to learn some countries don't think burning the national flag is a right, and even less if you are a foreigner.
Let's just say the Spanish ambassador wasn't pleased, but he managed to secure a minimum sentence, rescue their sorry asses and pack them home after spending two or three weeks in a Lithuanian jail... and they were quite lucky to escape so lightly.
What you are saying supports what I said. Everyone in the West would agree that taking property that does not belong to you should be penalized in some way. Nobody would suggest that what they did was correct or proper.
Quote from: crazy canuck on October 02, 2009, 02:15:50 PM
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 01:32:29 AM
Don't be so sure... For example, last year a pair of brainless teenagers (redundant, I know) vacationing somewhere in the Baltic, let's say Riga but I don't remember the place, decided it would be a great idea to climb a street lamp, tear down the small national flag hanging, and get a souvenir on the cheap. In the Day of Independence...
Result? Swiftly arrested and jailed on charges of robbery, public scandal and much worse, defiling the national symbols. They were shocked to learn some countries don't think burning the national flag is a right, and even less if you are a foreigner.
Let's just say the Spanish ambassador wasn't pleased, but he managed to secure a minimum sentence, rescue their sorry asses and pack them home after spending two or three weeks in a Lithuanian jail... and they were quite lucky to escape so lightly.
What you are saying supports what I said. Everyone in the West would agree that taking property that does not belong to you should be penalized in some way. Nobody would suggest that what they did was correct or proper.
But what if (disclaimer: I don't
know that it does) the same penalties had accrued if they had simply
bought the flag and "defiled" it in some fashion?
Would criminal penalties be remotely acceptable under this "Western consensus"?
I'm sure someone has mentioned euthanasia, but I'll repeat it--there are acts permitted in some countries that would be defined as premeditated murder in the United States. In Denmark, sex is provided at taxpayer expense to the disabled (I think they're still doing this?, btw it is the greatest thing a state has ever done for its people) when the entire industry is illegal in almost every state of this Union. Fuck, if I lived in North Carolina I would
technically be violating the law by cohabitating out of wedlock.
Quote from: Caliga on October 02, 2009, 11:04:13 AM
Let's just compromise and call it the mid-West. Poland even looks a little bit like Ohio.
You trying to get on my bad side today boy?
Quote from: Alatriste on October 02, 2009, 06:14:46 AM
@dps, Marty
Good question... What's the West? I agree with Marty, if a democratic country, member of EU and NATO, doesn't belong to the West we have different meanings for the word.
I agree, but acknowledging Lithuania as part of the West makes it harder to give Marty a hard time about Poland not being a Western country. But I think that Marty himself has claimed on occasion that Polish democracy is a sham, so I guess that gives us our opening.
Quote from: Ideologue on October 02, 2009, 03:00:28 PM
But what if (disclaimer: I don't know that it does) the same penalties had accrued if they had simply bought the flag and "defiled" it in some fashion?
Would criminal penalties be remotely acceptable under this "Western consensus"?
I don't think this kind of hypothetical is particularly useful. If you are just asking about flag-burning, I would say that the general agreement is that it should not be criminalized.
QuoteI'm sure someone has mentioned euthanasia, but I'll repeat it--there are acts permitted in some countries that would be defined as premeditated murder in the United States. In Denmark, sex is provided at taxpayer expense to the disabled (I think they're still doing this?, btw it is the greatest thing a state has ever done for its people) when the entire industry is illegal in almost every state of this Union. Fuck, if I lived in North Carolina I would technically be violating the law by cohabitating out of wedlock.
Again, this is arguing that, because there are specific differences, there is not a general agreement. The general agreement is that murder requires intent to kill unlawfully, or negligence in avoiding killing unlawfully. If euthanasia is allowed in one's country, then under even the law in US states it isn't murder. I would say that there is a general agreement in the West that acts which lead to, or allow, the death of a terminal patient under the kindest possible circumstances and with the permission of the patient or family should not be criminalized. The specifics of what that allows may differ, but the general agreement pertains, I would say.
I'm not sure that we'll reach a consensus on this because we don't agree on what a consensus is. :P
However:
QuoteThe general agreement is that murder requires intent to kill unlawfully, or negligence in avoiding killing unlawfully.
Iirc, the elements of murder in the U.S. are ordinarily (perhaps universally):
1)intent to kill (mens rea)
2)the killing itself (actus reus)
3)a causal connection between the intent to kill and the death
However, as I believe you mean, affirmative defenses are available even when all three of those elements are satisfied--the most usual one being self-defense.
There is no consensus between European countries and the United States in recognizing euthanasia as an affirmative defense. (I
guess this is how euthanasia works in Europe--actually I do not know the procedural specifics. If I am wrong to the extent that it invalidates my point, I will be happy to withdraw it.)
In South Carolina, defense of domicile is an affirmative defense to criminal homicide prosecution under our codification of the castle doctrine. There is no consensus between even the United States as to whether this makes a killing "lawful" or "unlawful," and iirc most jurisdictions do
not recognize an absolute castle doctrine. Many people in the U.S. consider it a barbaric doctrine. In Europe, I understand defense of domicile is even more circumscribed than in most or many United States jurisdictions.
Edit: Another defense in the U.S., which may or may not ever have been raised, but surely must exist by implication, would be that killing is lawful when carried out by an agent of the state after due process of law. By contrast, in France, an execution would be murder!
There appears to me to be no or little consensus between us on when it is appropriate to take a human life.
That is a basic crime, perhaps the first crime--and I will admit there is generally a consensus that murder is the
worst of all crimes--but there is no consensus, to my mind, on what it actually
is. If there's no real consensus on what murder is, I don't see why we should expect there to be a real consensus on anything else.
If we're taking the very basics of the criminal law--killing is bad, stealing is bad, etc.--I think there is a consensus on that. But that is a human consensus.
On most issues, we are closer to our European cousins than to the rest of the world, and usually closer to our brethren states than to Europe, but where you see the undeniable underlying similarities, I see striking differences. Maybe it's just a matter of perspective. :)
Actually, this is pure speculation (and this possibly wouldn't be prosecuted for political reasons) but technically, since European countries do not recognize death penalty as a legitimate punishment, if an EU citizen was sentenced to death and executed, say, in the US, his executioner could be technically charged with murder/unlawful slaying in Europe.
Quote from: Martinus on October 03, 2009, 03:54:41 AM
Actually, this is pure speculation (and this possibly wouldn't be prosecuted for political reasons) but technically, since European countries do not recognize death penalty as a legitimate punishment, if an EU citizen was sentenced to death and executed, say, in the US, his executioner could be technically charged with murder/unlawful slaying in Europe.
And then those arresting him could technically be charged with unlawful imprisonment, and likewise executed. Let's just hope that none of those executors would be arrested as well, or we got a problem.
Quote from: Martinus on October 03, 2009, 03:54:41 AM
Actually, this is pure speculation (and this possibly wouldn't be prosecuted for political reasons) but technically, since European countries do not recognize death penalty as a legitimate punishment, if an EU citizen was sentenced to death and executed, say, in the US, his executioner could be technically charged with murder/unlawful slaying in Europe.
I would have thought the jurisdiction issue would render this situation impossible.
To the best of my (limited) knowledge of transnational law, nationality of the victim is an extremely weak prop for a jurisdictional argument, yes. Territory of the offense is far more important, and the laws of the territory, including the laws regulating punishment, would apply unlimited by international law. That said, if execution was considered a violation of customary int'l law, the state could be complained against in whatever the appropriate forum would be (ICJ?).