Interesting points, but I disagree: Criminals can and do call the police when crimes are committed against them. I accept they might not if they have a personal distaste for all law enforcement, or if it might lead to them being suspected of a crime, but I don't know how common either of these cases are. I admit that not having seen a handgun around where I live is poor evidence. A better indication would be how often people charged with crimes are found in possession of a firearm - which would inevitably lead to an easily provable additional charge. In my, (quite extensive), experience of criminal cases, I've only seen a handful of such charges.
As to the geopolitics and war on drugs, the UK is much more similar to the US in terms of the severity with which it pursues and prosecutes drugs offences than the rest of Europe. Its maritime borders are hard to police and drugs flow in from North Africa, the Middle East and more recently MDMA labs in India. However, you do rarely see the police in paramilitary gear (they use that for policing protests...) and I doubt they have access to tanks. This reinforces my point: when the legal side has regular access to weaponry, the other side acquires it too. When the legal side is not regularly armed, the need for criminals to arm themselves similarly diminishes.
The thing about the right to bear arms is that non-criminals exercising it encourages criminals to acquire firearms too.
In the US, criminals arm themselves in order to protect themselves. If you know the owner of the house you're breaking into may well have a firearm, then you are far more likely to carry one yourself. If not, why burden yourself with one? Particularly if - as in the UK - it will result in a more severe sentence if you are caught.
A gun is not much use for most crimes - even robbery can be effectively carried out with a knife - and so despite the fact that they are available on the black market, most criminals in the UK do not routinely carry them. The main exceptions to this rule are gangsters who frequently deal with other gun-toting criminals. Even then, it's pretty rare, I live in a poor part of central London and I have never seen a handgun.
Or more accurately, the judge decides whether what you are alleged to have done constitutes a crime. The jury - if there is one, and there probably would be in this sort of case - decides whether you actually committed the crime.
The courts interpret the laws that have been passed by parliament, this includes those costitutional laws that set out the boundaries referred to by RodgerDodger.
I believe that the American courts are allowed to interpret the constitution and decide whether the government is allowed to do something or not. To put it in your somewhat disingenuous tone: the USA has a written constitution, but no-one knows what it means until the courts tell them.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it does nonetheless have a means of administration prescribed by parliament - a constitution.
Some laws are held to be 'constitutional'. The Bill of Rights 1688 for example (on which the American Constitution was partially based if I recall correctly), which limits the power of the monarchy. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example.
It is of course possible for parliament to abolish any one of these laws - and I believe the same is the case in America, although a special majority of some sort is required to ammend the constitution. Beyond that somewhat technical difference, it's a similar system.
By convention, the Queen is said to have the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn. Technically she has a right to veto legislation, but this last occurred in 1709 and if she attempted it today, I suspect there would be a constitutional crisis leading either to a general election or a referendum on the monarchy.
As it happens, the current monarch is noted for having been reasonably good at her job. She has experience of eleven Prime Ministers and the events of half a century - whether or not you agree with her constitutional position, she is currently an extremely useful resource to the government.
A $100 laptop will last a lot longer than $100 of food will. Plus, they'll help with the kids education, which might just help them escape the poverty cycle they're in. Teach a man to fish, and all that.
As for the electricity point, that's probably why solar and mechanical generators are being developed.
Depends on the subject. One of the most irritating things about being a law student is that by and large your books go out of date really fast. Almost every book from my undergraduate degree, which I only completed earlier this year, is now in a different edition. E-books would be really useful from our perspective. Not to mention the fact that libraries can only stock a limited number of journals and case-books.
The cameras are not there to catch criminals, but to deter them. Those who would otherwise be committing crimes in full catchable view of the cameras are no longer doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I like my privacy as much as the next/.er but accuracy is important.
The bill actually does a better job of explaining itself than most legislation. I don't agree with it, in fact I strongly believe that the descision in R v Brown [1994] was incorrect and based more upon the judge's own "ew, icky!" reaction than on sound legal judgement, (IIRC the ratio was in part drawn from the premise that we outlaw duelling despite its consensual nature, ignoring the fact that duelling was practiced for reasons of vengence - usually a negative motive if extra-judicial - rather than for pleasure, and that due to this there were no saftey precautions taken, whoever heard of a safe, sane and consensual duel?) but it is nevertheless perfectly valid law.
The crime is not the problem, the punishment is. The victim is not well placed to consider the complex moral and ethical problems associated with punishing someone and the effects it has.
I have never understood why the opinion of the victim is considered to be more important than that of an objective observer. The victim is emotionally attatched to the crime and clearly not in the best position to properly consider the extremely complex moral and ethical problems.
All the victim knows that an observer with the facts to hand does not is how the crime made them feel - the emotional damage may of course be immense - but I do not see why this should have any impact on the punishment of the criminal. Afterall, the punishment of the criminal will have knock-on effects - they may have a family and children for example. I think it would be no more nor less just for the family of the criminal to go and shoot the person who shot the criminal. Both actions are understandable. As, in fact, is the original crime; whatever it is, it was committed for a reason - not necessarily a good reason, but what a good reason is is subjective. For this reason we have a system in place to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and private retribution is not necessary.
The Baton Rouge story is interesting, though I cannot help but notice the main point in its favour appears to be "that's justice at minimal cost to the public." I remain extremely skeptical of the notion that the financial cost of justice should ever be a consideration when deciding what system to adopt.
Whilst it is true, as far as I know, that you cannot stand trial if you're dead, it is nothing to do with Habeas Corpus which is the writ used to prevent unlawful imprisonment (literally it means "have the body" not necessarily the dead body).
I seem to recall getting lost in the supermarket a few times when I was a kid - wandered off without my parents noticing. I think I did it in town once too. Not their fault, it could happen to anyone. Anyway, a phone would have been useful.
Well, since you think the words as you type, what would stop a computer being trained by getting you to type out a few thousand words of prose? It would just have to match up your brain activity with typing a particular word.
Heh, yeah, but you should see the other lot. The Tories just had to sack one of their front benchers for being racist (as in, saying it's ok to call soldiers "black bastards" etc)...
I admit I have literally only just begun studying company law (as in I've had one lecture earlier this week). Nevertheless, I suspect you are being too literal in your interpretation. A legal person is different to a natural person - being a legal person enables you to enter into contracts, take out loans, get sued, that sort of thing. That is, as far as I know, the bulk of it, though I appreciate the terminology is confusing. This system was devised a considerable amount of time ago, back before we believed in such things as Human Rights, and when personal freedoms (such as the freedom to risk your property) were the majority of what the civil law was concerned with. Companies were called legal persons, because, by Victorian standards, they looked to the law like people.
Even so, I would be surprised to learn HR were being bestowed upon companies - they may be persons, but they are not humans.
Companies are considered people because this enables them to limit their financial liability and encourages their directors to take greater risks. This in turn encourages innovation and is good for the economy. Courts are usually unwilling to go behind the corporate veil, but will do so in cases of serious fraud and the like.
If we are going to have a market driven system, this is arguably the best way to do it, though of course since there is less deterrent against irresponsible behaviour, it does require heavy legislation to ensure that the power a corporation has is not abused or used negligently.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting points, but I disagree: Criminals can and do call the police when crimes are committed against them. I accept they might not if they have a personal distaste for all law enforcement, or if it might lead to them being suspected of a crime, but I don't know how common either of these cases are. I admit that not having seen a handgun around where I live is poor evidence. A better indication would be how often people charged with crimes are found in possession of a firearm - which would inevitably lead to an easily provable additional charge. In my, (quite extensive), experience of criminal cases, I've only seen a handful of such charges.
As to the geopolitics and war on drugs, the UK is much more similar to the US in terms of the severity with which it pursues and prosecutes drugs offences than the rest of Europe. Its maritime borders are hard to police and drugs flow in from North Africa, the Middle East and more recently MDMA labs in India. However, you do rarely see the police in paramilitary gear (they use that for policing protests...) and I doubt they have access to tanks. This reinforces my point: when the legal side has regular access to weaponry, the other side acquires it too. When the legal side is not regularly armed, the need for criminals to arm themselves similarly diminishes.
The thing about the right to bear arms is that non-criminals exercising it encourages criminals to acquire firearms too.
In the US, criminals arm themselves in order to protect themselves. If you know the owner of the house you're breaking into may well have a firearm, then you are far more likely to carry one yourself. If not, why burden yourself with one? Particularly if - as in the UK - it will result in a more severe sentence if you are caught.
A gun is not much use for most crimes - even robbery can be effectively carried out with a knife - and so despite the fact that they are available on the black market, most criminals in the UK do not routinely carry them. The main exceptions to this rule are gangsters who frequently deal with other gun-toting criminals. Even then, it's pretty rare, I live in a poor part of central London and I have never seen a handgun.
I'd go with 1688 when the Bill of Rights formally subordinated the monarch to Parliament.
Or more accurately, the judge decides whether what you are alleged to have done constitutes a crime. The jury - if there is one, and there probably would be in this sort of case - decides whether you actually committed the crime.
In fairness, I don't actually know of a genuine Australian who drinks Fosters on a regular basis.
The courts interpret the laws that have been passed by parliament, this includes those costitutional laws that set out the boundaries referred to by RodgerDodger.
I believe that the American courts are allowed to interpret the constitution and decide whether the government is allowed to do something or not. To put it in your somewhat disingenuous tone: the USA has a written constitution, but no-one knows what it means until the courts tell them.
The UK doesn't have a written constitution, but it does nonetheless have a means of administration prescribed by parliament - a constitution.
Some laws are held to be 'constitutional'. The Bill of Rights 1688 for example (on which the American Constitution was partially based if I recall correctly), which limits the power of the monarchy. The Human Rights Act 1998 is another example.
It is of course possible for parliament to abolish any one of these laws - and I believe the same is the case in America, although a special majority of some sort is required to ammend the constitution. Beyond that somewhat technical difference, it's a similar system.
By convention, the Queen is said to have the right to be consulted, the right to advise, and the right to warn. Technically she has a right to veto legislation, but this last occurred in 1709 and if she attempted it today, I suspect there would be a constitutional crisis leading either to a general election or a referendum on the monarchy.
As it happens, the current monarch is noted for having been reasonably good at her job. She has experience of eleven Prime Ministers and the events of half a century - whether or not you agree with her constitutional position, she is currently an extremely useful resource to the government.
Because to do that properly would involve endless cigarettes and we're not made of money.
A $100 laptop will last a lot longer than $100 of food will. Plus, they'll help with the kids education, which might just help them escape the poverty cycle they're in. Teach a man to fish, and all that.
As for the electricity point, that's probably why solar and mechanical generators are being developed.
Depends on the subject. One of the most irritating things about being a law student is that by and large your books go out of date really fast. Almost every book from my undergraduate degree, which I only completed earlier this year, is now in a different edition. E-books would be really useful from our perspective. Not to mention the fact that libraries can only stock a limited number of journals and case-books.
When was the last time Europe refused to back military intervention? How's that working out for you?
The cameras are not there to catch criminals, but to deter them. Those who would otherwise be committing crimes in full catchable view of the cameras are no longer doing so.
Don't get me wrong, I like my privacy as much as the next /.er but accuracy is important.
"and they will probably be adding 3d building support too"
They already do don't they? Even in the flightsim.
There are still seven and a half years left for them to be developed in. Be patient.
Only in a technical sense. The Law Lords by constitutional convention do not sit in the House of Lords, and in fact by 2009 will no longer be members.
Which bit can't be real?
The bill actually does a better job of explaining itself than most legislation. I don't agree with it, in fact I strongly believe that the descision in R v Brown [1994] was incorrect and based more upon the judge's own "ew, icky!" reaction than on sound legal judgement, (IIRC the ratio was in part drawn from the premise that we outlaw duelling despite its consensual nature, ignoring the fact that duelling was practiced for reasons of vengence - usually a negative motive if extra-judicial - rather than for pleasure, and that due to this there were no saftey precautions taken, whoever heard of a safe, sane and consensual duel?) but it is nevertheless perfectly valid law.
The crime is not the problem, the punishment is. The victim is not well placed to consider the complex moral and ethical problems associated with punishing someone and the effects it has.
I have never understood why the opinion of the victim is considered to be more important than that of an objective observer. The victim is emotionally attatched to the crime and clearly not in the best position to properly consider the extremely complex moral and ethical problems.
All the victim knows that an observer with the facts to hand does not is how the crime made them feel - the emotional damage may of course be immense - but I do not see why this should have any impact on the punishment of the criminal. Afterall, the punishment of the criminal will have knock-on effects - they may have a family and children for example. I think it would be no more nor less just for the family of the criminal to go and shoot the person who shot the criminal. Both actions are understandable. As, in fact, is the original crime; whatever it is, it was committed for a reason - not necessarily a good reason, but what a good reason is is subjective. For this reason we have a system in place to ensure that everyone is treated fairly and private retribution is not necessary.
The Baton Rouge story is interesting, though I cannot help but notice the main point in its favour appears to be "that's justice at minimal cost to the public." I remain extremely skeptical of the notion that the financial cost of justice should ever be a consideration when deciding what system to adopt.
Whilst it is true, as far as I know, that you cannot stand trial if you're dead, it is nothing to do with Habeas Corpus which is the writ used to prevent unlawful imprisonment (literally it means "have the body" not necessarily the dead body).
I seem to recall getting lost in the supermarket a few times when I was a kid - wandered off without my parents noticing. I think I did it in town once too. Not their fault, it could happen to anyone. Anyway, a phone would have been useful.
Well, since you think the words as you type, what would stop a computer being trained by getting you to type out a few thousand words of prose? It would just have to match up your brain activity with typing a particular word.
Heh, yeah, but you should see the other lot. The Tories just had to sack one of their front benchers for being racist (as in, saying it's ok to call soldiers "black bastards" etc)...
I admit I have literally only just begun studying company law (as in I've had one lecture earlier this week). Nevertheless, I suspect you are being too literal in your interpretation. A legal person is different to a natural person - being a legal person enables you to enter into contracts, take out loans, get sued, that sort of thing. That is, as far as I know, the bulk of it, though I appreciate the terminology is confusing. This system was devised a considerable amount of time ago, back before we believed in such things as Human Rights, and when personal freedoms (such as the freedom to risk your property) were the majority of what the civil law was concerned with. Companies were called legal persons, because, by Victorian standards, they looked to the law like people.
Even so, I would be surprised to learn HR were being bestowed upon companies - they may be persons, but they are not humans.
Companies are considered people because this enables them to limit their financial liability and encourages their directors to take greater risks. This in turn encourages innovation and is good for the economy. Courts are usually unwilling to go behind the corporate veil, but will do so in cases of serious fraud and the like.
If we are going to have a market driven system, this is arguably the best way to do it, though of course since there is less deterrent against irresponsible behaviour, it does require heavy legislation to ensure that the power a corporation has is not abused or used negligently.
Yes... it certainly caused panic all those other times it was advanced...