My point was that there is nothing wrong with punishing people who willfully break the law with greater fines than people who accidentally break the law or break the law while not aware of the intricacies.
I think that's what the OP is getting at, too- they hit her with such high fines because they thought that she was willfully breaking the law, knew it, and was trying to slide past.
No. It's fine to fine the defendant $221,976.24 for willfully breaking the law. If you don't believe the law is ethical, there are proper channels to go through in order to change it.
Sibling comment may be true, but I couldn't tell you. I was speaking far more prosaically- I have a separate file for each chapter, write that chapter in it, and then when I'm finished I copy it into a single master file for copy editing, formatting, pagination, conversion to PDF, addition of headers, footers, etc.
I wasn't aware you could link files like that, but it sounds like far less effort than what I currently do. I'll look into it. (I also don't keep a table of contents for my novels.)
I generally use Word 2007, which I find has much improved handling of documents compared to Word 2003. (And I like the ribbon). But I've never had an issue of file corruption or anything like that, and I do keep copies in PDF and RTF just in case.
I right now have four word documents one- one is 171 pages and 70,000 words, another is 105 pages, and the other two are about 25 pages each. Word isn't blinking.
Generally I author each chapter in a separate document and then merge them into the main document simply because otherwise I scroll around like a madman trying to check what I've previously written, but Word most certainly can handle very large and complicated documents.
It's not at all ridiculous. The issue has nothing to do with the victim.
Crimes are, at their core, offenses against the State, not against individuals.
This has nothing to do with her being a child and everything to do with the fact that once a crime has been permitted- an offense against the State- the State is the entity that takes the lead in prosecuting, not the victim.
There is even, I would say, a very strong public policy rationale to be served in ensuring that the victim does not have a role in the administration of justice.
Technically correct. Practically, wrong. The Court may decide what passes for 'received the summons' almost entirely at its own discretion.
The Court may, for example, argue that having a notice published in the newspaper for three weeks constitutes sufficient notice for you to have 'received the summons'. The fact that you didn't actually see it is irrelevant.
I imagine his office is acting under the aegis of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 which allows the General Services Administration to provide offices, funding, training etc. to the person who 'apparently' won the election.
It is not necessary for the electors to have voted, and the Presidential Transition Act is a congressional statute.
I'm not sure that's really relevant. A reasonable person would probably not know sufficiently either way to be able to make a valid judgment call, but it doesn't matter; the fact that it doesn't matter that the damage was vastly out of proportion to what would happen to your average person is the point of the thin-skull doctrine.
Because there is a clearly foreseeable danger in walking down an alley in a short skirt if you're female.
Presumably, it goes like this.
If an alcohol company is not responsible for alcohol-related deaths (obviously, the individual in drinking alcohol did not consent to be killed as a result, such consent being invalid even if it was given), then a rapist is not responsible for rape, either; the individual putting themselves in the way of the rapist did not consent to being raped, presumably.
I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, I'm not sure I agree with your statement- the jostling someone in a subway and causing their death is almost certainly the tort of battery (although I suppose it depends on your jurisdiction), which would be wrongful death because, they're, well, dead, and can't bring a tort action.
But, Judge QuantumG, that woman was walking down the alleyway in a short skirt! Everything has risk! if she chose to walk down that alleyway at night, then it is her choice, and she is responsible.
Not my client, though. He might have raped her, but she was really responsible for it.
Which may never come, if the market is small and the resources necessary to service it exceed the likely value of the market- which may very well be true.
Indeed, the most worrying air safety problem in the western world today is how surface to air missiles are targeted at commercial airliners on approach to LAX or JFK.
I think the problem is that we, as a species, have a great deal of trouble drawing a bright line between when and where killing is acceptable and when and where it is not. That... distinction is not integral to our communal psyche.
Which, when you get down to it, is rather uncomfortable because it is a fairly fundamental issue. The result is that everyone ends up calling each other murderers (or totally insane).
First, I believe you can treat animals ethically and humanely without assigning them "rights [wikipedia.org]." Animals cannot claim their rights (as we understand them). If given, they cannot exercise them. (Except, of course, the right to life.)
The same could be said of children, for what it's worth. Whether or not something can exercise or claim its rights should not vitiate them.
Slashdot Mirror
How, exactly, are the banks 'stealing' money that way?
Where I live, it's already possible to get a $10,000 speeding ticket.
My point was that there is nothing wrong with punishing people who willfully break the law with greater fines than people who accidentally break the law or break the law while not aware of the intricacies.
I think that's what the OP is getting at, too- they hit her with such high fines because they thought that she was willfully breaking the law, knew it, and was trying to slide past.
No. It's fine to fine the defendant $221,976.24 for willfully breaking the law. If you don't believe the law is ethical, there are proper channels to go through in order to change it.
Sibling comment may be true, but I couldn't tell you. I was speaking far more prosaically- I have a separate file for each chapter, write that chapter in it, and then when I'm finished I copy it into a single master file for copy editing, formatting, pagination, conversion to PDF, addition of headers, footers, etc.
I wasn't aware you could link files like that, but it sounds like far less effort than what I currently do. I'll look into it. (I also don't keep a table of contents for my novels.)
I generally use Word 2007, which I find has much improved handling of documents compared to Word 2003. (And I like the ribbon). But I've never had an issue of file corruption or anything like that, and I do keep copies in PDF and RTF just in case.
I right now have four word documents one- one is 171 pages and 70,000 words, another is 105 pages, and the other two are about 25 pages each. Word isn't blinking.
Generally I author each chapter in a separate document and then merge them into the main document simply because otherwise I scroll around like a madman trying to check what I've previously written, but Word most certainly can handle very large and complicated documents.
As far as I know, the V-22's service ceiling is only 500 feet below Everest's peak, far higher than most other helicopters.
Both planes could easily make the altitude, the only question would be whether they could hover and land there.
I wonder whether you could send a MV-22B? Or, alternatively, a Harrier jumpjet?
Or, even, for that matter, an F-35B?
It's not at all ridiculous. The issue has nothing to do with the victim.
Crimes are, at their core, offenses against the State, not against individuals.
This has nothing to do with her being a child and everything to do with the fact that once a crime has been permitted- an offense against the State- the State is the entity that takes the lead in prosecuting, not the victim.
There is even, I would say, a very strong public policy rationale to be served in ensuring that the victim does not have a role in the administration of justice.
No.
You are presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Until the court rules, you are merely nothing.
Technically correct. Practically, wrong. The Court may decide what passes for 'received the summons' almost entirely at its own discretion.
The Court may, for example, argue that having a notice published in the newspaper for three weeks constitutes sufficient notice for you to have 'received the summons'. The fact that you didn't actually see it is irrelevant.
It's not necessary to change the rules.
Well, funding the transition of the old president to the new is pretty fundamental. I can't see you arguing about that.
So your argument must be that, in fact, the electors could theoretically elect someone completely different to the presidency!
Yeah, that'll go over well.
I imagine his office is acting under the aegis of the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 which allows the General Services Administration to provide offices, funding, training etc. to the person who 'apparently' won the election.
It is not necessary for the electors to have voted, and the Presidential Transition Act is a congressional statute.
I'm not sure that's really relevant. A reasonable person would probably not know sufficiently either way to be able to make a valid judgment call, but it doesn't matter; the fact that it doesn't matter that the damage was vastly out of proportion to what would happen to your average person is the point of the thin-skull doctrine.
Because there is a clearly foreseeable danger in walking down an alley in a short skirt if you're female.
Presumably, it goes like this.
If an alcohol company is not responsible for alcohol-related deaths (obviously, the individual in drinking alcohol did not consent to be killed as a result, such consent being invalid even if it was given), then a rapist is not responsible for rape, either; the individual putting themselves in the way of the rapist did not consent to being raped, presumably.
I'm not sure I agree. Firstly, I'm not sure I agree with your statement- the jostling someone in a subway and causing their death is almost certainly the tort of battery (although I suppose it depends on your jurisdiction), which would be wrongful death because, they're, well, dead, and can't bring a tort action.
Let me guess, you're a lawyer. You quoted almost word for word the 'eggshell-skull' doctrine.
That is, "You must take your victims as you find them". The fact that a regular person would not have been affected in such a way is no excuse.
I agree with you, entirely. An excellent comment.
But, Judge QuantumG, that woman was walking down the alleyway in a short skirt! Everything has risk! if she chose to walk down that alleyway at night, then it is her choice, and she is responsible.
Not my client, though. He might have raped her, but she was really responsible for it.
intentional infliction of emotional distress is already a tort.
Which may never come, if the market is small and the resources necessary to service it exceed the likely value of the market- which may very well be true.
You could be waiting a very long time indeed.
Indeed, the most worrying air safety problem in the western world today is how surface to air missiles are targeted at commercial airliners on approach to LAX or JFK.
I entirely agree.
I think the problem is that we, as a species, have a great deal of trouble drawing a bright line between when and where killing is acceptable and when and where it is not. That... distinction is not integral to our communal psyche.
Which, when you get down to it, is rather uncomfortable because it is a fairly fundamental issue. The result is that everyone ends up calling each other murderers (or totally insane).
The same could be said of children, for what it's worth. Whether or not something can exercise or claim its rights should not vitiate them.