Gitmo *IS* the United States, in spite of bending logic and reason into a pretzel to make a bad excuse for going around the constitution. The U.S. flag flies there, not the Cuban flag. The U.S. military controls the grounds, not the Cuban government. No Cuban citizens can go there.
It likely is a marketing success but that in no way diminishes the claim that the rich get a comparatively free ride. Put another way, poverty is expensive.
The fines need to be based on discretionary income (as in Finland), not total income. For a poor person, that would likely approach 0. In other words, it comes out of the bar, movie, and Starbucks money, not the rent money.
The problem is that the magic words defy the intent of a contract to be a meeting of minds. For the minds to meet they have to actually know what the thing means. They're much worse than writing the contract up in Latin. At least if it was in Latin, the parties would know they don't have any idea what it means rather than believing they do when the 'magic words' likely contort it's meaning beyond recognition.
The law belongs to the people and so the courts are (in theory) obligated to apply law and precedents to intent of the contract. Alas, they seem to favor the magic words. As far as any layman is concerned, that is just as much legalese as the various jargon and archaic words.
A 'reasonable' court would recognize that the rednecks more probably intended the layman's definition of reasonable, not one you would find in a law book.
Is it fair to charge one guy a months pay and another a night's bar tab for the same infringement? If the point is to deter bad driving, the financial pain needs to be the same.
Why not, lawyers think it's acceptable to write a contract between two English speakers in legalese.
The requirement for a contract is that both parties have the same understanding of the contract. Failing that, that an eventual mediator understands it.
So if 2 rednecks write a contract and the most likely mediator is also a redneck, the requirement is met.
I can also understand Archie Bunker and Yoda just fine.
The basic parts of speech remain the same though their arrangement may change and words may sometimes move fluidly from one to the other (verbing nouns for example).
And yet, people who absolutely positively did not commit the crime in question have been executed. That is a clear sign that the checks and balances are inadequate.
I am calling your excuse for the mistakes in the death penalty specious. You claim that since there are more accidental deaths in police chases than there are intentional but wrong executions, we needn't be overly concerned about wrongful executions is simply wrong.
In each case of an innocent being killed by the state the courts, several judges, at least one jury and the prosecutor swore that the victim was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even when the evidence was circumstantial. How do we make them quit lying?
The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've executed someone else themselves.
What might that say about the executioners? More to the point, what does that say about the executioners if it turns out the person they executed was innocent? Have they not then executed an innocent? Isn't that (according to you and them) grounds for execution?
Since you probably already know that people have been executed and then exonerated, your first argument will probably be that they didn't know, but since we DO punish people even if they were motivated by a mistaken belief, EVEN IF IT WAS DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS.
First it rattles the windows with an excessively loud radio, then it goes goes into lowrider mode to shake you awake. If that fails, it calls 911 and reports your death.
Slashdot Mirror
If only we had a way to predict when the sun would set...
That is disturbing, but one nit to pick.
Gitmo *IS* the United States, in spite of bending logic and reason into a pretzel to make a bad excuse for going around the constitution. The U.S. flag flies there, not the Cuban flag. The U.S. military controls the grounds, not the Cuban government. No Cuban citizens can go there.
It likely is a marketing success but that in no way diminishes the claim that the rich get a comparatively free ride. Put another way, poverty is expensive.
The fines need to be based on discretionary income (as in Finland), not total income. For a poor person, that would likely approach 0. In other words, it comes out of the bar, movie, and Starbucks money, not the rent money.
The problem is that the magic words defy the intent of a contract to be a meeting of minds. For the minds to meet they have to actually know what the thing means. They're much worse than writing the contract up in Latin. At least if it was in Latin, the parties would know they don't have any idea what it means rather than believing they do when the 'magic words' likely contort it's meaning beyond recognition.
The law belongs to the people and so the courts are (in theory) obligated to apply law and precedents to intent of the contract. Alas, they seem to favor the magic words. As far as any layman is concerned, that is just as much legalese as the various jargon and archaic words.
A 'reasonable' court would recognize that the rednecks more probably intended the layman's definition of reasonable, not one you would find in a law book.
That's why the schemes are often based on an estimate of disposable income.
Sufficiently rich people often get the red carpet rolled out including comping them heavily. The poor pay retail.
Is it fair to charge one guy a months pay and another a night's bar tab for the same infringement? If the point is to deter bad driving, the financial pain needs to be the same.
There is only so far they can go targeting only the rich before they get buried by expensive lawyers.
In the current system, they can target the poor forever since there will be no expensive lawyers.
Why not, lawyers think it's acceptable to write a contract between two English speakers in legalese.
The requirement for a contract is that both parties have the same understanding of the contract. Failing that, that an eventual mediator understands it.
So if 2 rednecks write a contract and the most likely mediator is also a redneck, the requirement is met.
I can also understand Archie Bunker and Yoda just fine.
The basic parts of speech remain the same though their arrangement may change and words may sometimes move fluidly from one to the other (verbing nouns for example).
That wouldn't quite work since it would still allow for breeding the clone of a champion (there goes exclusivity).
If it isn't bloodlust, then a quick painless death would suffice in an execution, but it plainly does not.
Such respect for life would surely also have guided the Rs away from war in the middle east.
One might also expect that a deep respect for life would make even the possibility of executing an innocent unacceptable.
Funny choice of words there.
And yet, people who absolutely positively did not commit the crime in question have been executed. That is a clear sign that the checks and balances are inadequate.
I am calling your excuse for the mistakes in the death penalty specious. You claim that since there are more accidental deaths in police chases than there are intentional but wrong executions, we needn't be overly concerned about wrongful executions is simply wrong.
Deliberately killing someone is well recognized to be a much greater offense than accidental killing.
In each case of an innocent being killed by the state the courts, several judges, at least one jury and the prosecutor swore that the victim was proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, even when the evidence was circumstantial. How do we make them quit lying?
The reason, not excuse, to execute someone is simple, they've executed someone else themselves.
What might that say about the executioners? More to the point, what does that say about the executioners if it turns out the person they executed was innocent? Have they not then executed an innocent? Isn't that (according to you and them) grounds for execution?
Since you probably already know that people have been executed and then exonerated, your first argument will probably be that they didn't know, but since we DO punish people even if they were motivated by a mistaken belief, EVEN IF IT WAS DUE TO MENTAL ILLNESS.
Sadly true. Oddly enough, that makes the executioners much closer in kind to the executed than most people are.
Perhaps they should look at the fact that nobody will sell them the drugs and no physician will help them and take a hint.
First it rattles the windows with an excessively loud radio, then it goes goes into lowrider mode to shake you awake. If that fails, it calls 911 and reports your death.
A couple hours later an autonomous army vehicle arrives and shoots up the diner until the humans inside get the message and start filling tanks.
I'm guessing he's an MBA.
Of course they're not in sync. Of course part of that is due to MBAs thinking they need to hit a metric.
It can't be everybody chose it if anybody rejected it.