15 ms·

>Laws that say "forget the law, anything we think is unreasonable is illegal" are a growing problem in Europe. It makes the EU look like fools Not trying to st

• Nadya 10y ago
  >cat in microwave How oddly specific....were you referencing this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMH8Tof69SE I do agree the U.S has a problem with rather frivulious lawsuits over "not following the letter of the law" or "wasn't mentioned in the safety manual to not do this thing that should have been common sense". It seems when people think "American legal system" things like this come to mind: http://i.imgur.com/D7aP2bT.png http://i.imgur.com/D7aP2bT.png If I remember correctly though, the silliness of the above is actually due to a law about packaging must contain allergen information for certain common allergies. This means even peanuts must contain the label in order to comply with the law. Rather than list exceptions and complicate the law, it applies broadly to everything. IANAL, I may not be remembering this fact 100% correctly.
  • arcticfox 10y ago
    The peanuts picture is funny, but it's 100% the simple. logical, and safe way to do it.
    • Nadya 10y ago
      I was defending it ;) I find it absolutely hilarious whenever I see it - but simple laws with "silly consequences" are better than complex laws that are difficult to follow, let alone enforce. Not to mention having to come up with and define products that would fit into the exceptions list, and investigating whether or not the product actually - blah blah blah. Bunch of overhead. Better use of tax payer money to say "if it contains one of these allergens, say so on the packaging" and be done with it. No questions asked and it doesn't complicate the law to avoid saying something silly like "peanuts may contain peanuts".
      • arcticfox 10y ago
        > I was defending it ;) For sure, I was just trying to be forceful in my (same) opinion. It's a good example and good common sense.
    • PascalsMugger 10y ago
      I think perhaps a more subtle warning would be to have the container sense an rfid tag in peanut allergic peoples' hands and set off a warning alarm and flashing lights.
    • deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
  • allendoerfer 10y ago
    To calm you a bit, while not legally required, there are packages in Germany advertising the product being free of gluten and lactose and vegan, when there are obviously neither milk, grains nor animals involved.
• kbenson 10y ago
  > "cat in microwave/washing machine/toaster" Okay, I'm curious. What's this supposed to mean? That consumers are putting cats in those devices and getting away with it, or putting cats in those devices to void warranties or something? The best I can come up with is that you are thinking of cat in the microwave, which is an urban legend. I'm not sure how that's affecting the view of the US legal system.
  • thomasz 10y ago
    There is a widespread believe in Europe, that in the US, you can "dry" your cat in the microwave oven or "wash" it in the washing machine and then sue the manufacturer for billions, unless they specifically warned that this could kill the cat.
  • dsfyu404ed 10y ago
    He should have cited the woman who spilled hot coffee on her. The legal precedent being set by the court was "if it's hot enough to hurt someone label it that way" and to do that they had to award punitive (you screwed up and we're punishing you) damages. If they just ordered the company to pay based on medical costs it would have basically said "this is your fault and you should pay for her medical care" but by awarding punitive damages the court was trying (and succeeded) to send a message about what is and is not acceptable.
    • kbenson 10y ago
      Are you referring to the McDonalds hot coffee incident? That one is generally more interesting[1] than widely known or believed. The details may not change your opinion on whether the outcome was warranted, but they may change whether you think the case itself was worth having (from the details, I don't think it was frivolous). > by awarding punitive damages the court was trying (and succeeded) to send a message about what is and is not acceptable. The jury decides whether the lawsuit is warranted and how much to award. The court can alter this to try to make a statement (and in the case I referenced, the court reduced damages in each judgement). 1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restaurants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebeck_v._McDonald%27s_Restau...
• gravypod 10y ago
  We might have our kinks, but I don't think that most of the people in jail ended up in there because "Yea, what you were doing was allowed by the law, but you know we kind of didn't like it". When that finally starts to happen in the USA, you can count on me being in the streets protesting. Edit: You may also want to consider the current practices in Germany regarding frivolous law suits against websites. We aren't the only country with this problem. So is every place.
  • DanBC 10y ago
    How many people are in jail for life without parole because of 3 strikes laws? Thus in prison for life because their 3rd minor crime tips them over 3 strikes?
    • Natsu 10y ago
      That's against the letter of the law, rather than some vague interpretation thereof. I know there are problems with the application of three strikes, but it's not terribly unreasonable to say that we have little cause to believe that you will reform after, say, murdering or raping your third victim and therefore little reason to let you out of prison such that you can seek new ones. And it's your third felony that puts you over, it's not like they can bust you for jaywalking, though I'm sure there are exceptional cases, which could be corrected by presidential pardons if there was good cause to believe they've repented. But I'm sure that's an unpopular opinion here, as I doubt many people here have ever had to worry about someone in prison for murdering their mother who also threatened grandma. Now, it's great if people reform, but committing your third felony is pretty good evidence that you aren't likely to.
      • clort 10y ago
        except that a 'felony' can be essentially a minimal possession of drugs http://www.drugtreatment.com/expose/marijuana-felony-amounts-by-state/ all those could be corrected by presidential pardons but I don't expect they will be. Here is one to start the ball rolling: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_L._Tyler
• Kell 10y ago
  > Edit: Remembered one more: Juries deciding whether murderers are guilty or not. Simply unthinkable over here. Ironically the horror of this scenario is fuelled by the US/Hollywood itself. Maybe not in Germany, but France has juries for murder case since 1810, actually, a jury is theoretically mandatory for any case where a sentence of more than 10 years in prison is possible. The accused cannot waive this "right" like in some cases in the US. (in practice, because juries take a lot of court time, are shaky and difficult to manage, prosecutors often will prosecute a serious crime like a less serious similar one to avoid having to go in front of a jury (e.g. instead of prosecuting something as rape, do it as if it was sexual assault). The prosecutor must have the agreement of the victim and the accused to do it). Also, it's not only France. Austria, Greece, Italy, Belgium and others have that sort of jury.
• mineshaftgap 10y ago
  None of those things will help Europe unfuck itself, but go ahead and look away.
• landryraccoon 10y ago
  > Remembered one more: Juries deciding whether murderers are guilty or not. Simply unthinkable over here. Can you clarify? A jury trial is supposed to benefit the defendant.
  • allendoerfer 10y ago
    There are many arguments against it. I think the main cultural difference is that in general Americans distrust the state more than Europeans do, which is often a good thing. Though, I think with jury trials it fosters a bad system. I am not a lawyer and there are good articles discussing the system, I think lawsuits can often be highly complex and should be handled by professionals, not amateurs. I believe if you look guilty you are better of with professionals, who I imagine are more likely to judge you based on facts instead of sympathy.
• dragonwriter 10y ago
  > Juries deciding whether murderers are guilty or not. Simply unthinkable over here. Well, that might be unthinkable in Germany, but its clearly not in Europe as a whole, since we got that from a place in Europe that hasn't abandoned it in the time since their system migrated to North America.
  • trhway 10y ago
    juries are supposed to be juries of peers, to make sure that what one did is really a crime as considered by his peers. Lords judge lords, commoners judge commoners, clergy have its own justice system... For the same reason the jury should come from the vicinity of where things happened. With geographical mobility and everybody becoming a peer to everybody one can see how "jury of peers" got stretched so that a bunch of Texans from some faraway county would be deciding some tech patent case.
  • allendoerfer 10y ago
    >Well, that might be unthinkable in Germany, but its clearly not in Europe as a whole, since we got that from a place in Europe that hasn't abandoned it in the time since their system migrated to North America. The UK is clearly an outlier. They also drive on the wrong side of the road and have a strange relationship to the metric system :D
    • iofj 10y ago
      There are 2 legal systems in Europe (and the world). 1) "US-style" English Common Law, applies in Great Britain (and former British Empire worldwide, like Australia, Canada, Kenia, ...). Biggest distinguishing features : right to a jury trial, precendents carry legal weight (judges have to follow earlier judgements when possible), opposing experts, ... 2) "French (Revolution) Law", sometimes named after Napoleon, applies essentially everywhere else. No right to jury trials (some courts have jury trials, most don't), precendents can be cited but carry no legal weight, experts are chosen by the court, ... There are of course important legal differences outside of these high level differences.
• rconti 10y ago
  Wait, what's the alternative to juries deciding whether or not someone is guilty of murder? Having a single judge do it? Seems to me that it's pretty damned important to be sure that someone is guilty before you lock them up for life. But that just might be my american bias showing through.
  • Retric 10y ago
    Do you think random Jury's are more skilled than a small panel of judges? The US uses Juries because as a check on government power. The whole point is jury nullification not factual accuracy.
    • dragonwriter 10y ago
      > The US uses Juries because as a check on government power. The whole point is jury nullification not fact accuracy. Nullification is not the whole point (but not insignificant), and factual accuracy is important -- but accountability to the citizenry at large (represented by a jury drawn from the citizenry, rather than professional government officers whose accountability to the public is distant at best) for that factual accuracy is just as important.
      • Retric 10y ago
        NM
        • dragonwriter 10y ago
          You do not have a right to forego criminal jury trial in the US. Even if you want to waive jury trial, you may not be allowed to avoid it -- e.g., in the federal system, both the prosecution and court must also agree in order for a trial to a bench trial rather than a jury trial.
    • walshemj 10y ago
      Nope it descends from magna carta and UK common law
• Tomte 10y ago
  In Germany noone can be convicted of murder (or any other grave crime) without at least one lay judge agreeing. In the case of murder trials (three professional judges, two lay judges), you need four votes, because three would be less than the required two thirds.
  • allendoerfer 10y ago
    You cannot compare German/Austrian Schöffen to an American amateur jury. They are semi-professionals appointed for 5 years, not random people doing a random case. And as you said, they form a panel with 3 professional judges and are not left alone in a room.
    • Tomte 10y ago
      Yes, I can and do. Of course it's different. But they are certainly not "semi-professional".