4 ms·

Is it? Seems fair to me that if you antagonize everyone under the sun, it comes back to bite you. I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter an

Is it? Seems fair to me that if you antagonize everyone under the sun, it comes back to bite you. I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...." Like what if you had a stalker who wasn't TECHNICALLY violating any of the terms of his restraining order but was doing everything in their power to make your miserable anyway? Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it to them?

1000units 9y ago
I don't think you understand what you are advocating. The letter of the law is sacred. This is fundamental jurisprudence. If you don't like the system, we have something called legislature to change it.
- teej 9y ago
  The charter and purpose of the judicial system is to interpret the law. The “letter of the law” is not sacred.
  - 1000units 9y ago
    I'm glad you're not member to my judiciary.
    - Larrikin 9y ago
      I'm glad you're not one of those judges that can run on an open ballot in certain states.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
  - giardini 9y ago
    Indeed. It is the spirit of the law that is sacred.
    - 1000units 9y ago
      After you see enough miserable, unrecognizable contortions of the law used as weapons by the powerful against the innocent in the name of spirit, you begin to appreciate why all the greatest judiciaries ultimately respect the written word.
nickysielicki 9y ago
Yes. ABSOLUTELY YES. Rules have to mean something. Retroactively changing the rules because you don't like the outcome is like having no rules at all.
bmelton 9y ago
> Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it to them? If you don't uphold the civil rights of the loathsome, then those protections won't be there to protect the righteous. It's worth remembering that while Shkrelli is super unlikeable, at various points in history, so were Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.
- Larrikin 9y ago
  All of those people were jailed for their actions. Their actions were considered noble by a large number of people so there were multiple lawful and unlawful protests that brought pressure on the government to change the law.
  - stale2002 9y ago
    Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed. They were jailed because the system was broken. And it would be better if the system was NOT broken.
    - nickysielicki 9y ago
      > Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed. In absolute terms, it was bad that those people were jailed, but with respect to the system, it was good that those people were jailed because it served to highlight the clear disconnect between the laws and what was right and wrong to society. It's unrealistic to expect institutions to make changes without going through the process. If Rosa Parks never went to jail there would have never been the protests which brought about change. If you think the actions by Shkreli should have strong punishment, it's a bad thing if Shkreli gets the book thrown at him artificially. You're not setting precedent and you're not fixing the system. Someone in the future will do something similar and, depending on the court, they'll get off with a slap on the wrist. You should root for things to be done by the book so that everyone can realize, "hey, this book sucks!" and it gets changed through legislation.
exabrial 9y ago
Yes. If they aren't breaking the law, they aren't breaking the law. You don't get to bend Justice to a certain outcome because of a perceived social injustice.
gaius 9y ago
I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...." But we do live in that system. That's how Google and Apple pay no taxes.
- SamPatt 9y ago
  What's your source on those companies paying no taxes?
to_bpr 9y ago
>I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...." Your mindset is terrifying.

1000units 9y ago

I don't think you understand what you are advocating. The letter of the law is sacred. This is fundamental jurisprudence. If you don't like the system, we have something called legislature to change it.

teej 9y ago
The charter and purpose of the judicial system is to interpret the law. The “letter of the law” is not sacred.
- 1000units 9y ago
  I'm glad you're not member to my judiciary.
  - Larrikin 9y ago
    I'm glad you're not one of those judges that can run on an open ballot in certain states.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- giardini 9y ago
  Indeed. It is the spirit of the law that is sacred.
  - 1000units 9y ago
    After you see enough miserable, unrecognizable contortions of the law used as weapons by the powerful against the innocent in the name of spirit, you begin to appreciate why all the greatest judiciaries ultimately respect the written word.

nickysielicki 9y ago

Yes. ABSOLUTELY YES. Rules have to mean something. Retroactively changing the rules because you don't like the outcome is like having no rules at all.

bmelton 9y ago

> Is it a disgrace for the law to find a way to stick it to them? If you don't uphold the civil rights of the loathsome, then those protections won't be there to protect the righteous. It's worth remembering that while Shkrelli is super unlikeable, at various points in history, so were Martin Luther King, Rosa Parks, etc.

Larrikin 9y ago
All of those people were jailed for their actions. Their actions were considered noble by a large number of people so there were multiple lawful and unlawful protests that brought pressure on the government to change the law.
- stale2002 9y ago
  Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed. They were jailed because the system was broken. And it would be better if the system was NOT broken.
  - nickysielicki 9y ago
    > Yes, and it was BAD that those people were jailed. In absolute terms, it was bad that those people were jailed, but with respect to the system, it was good that those people were jailed because it served to highlight the clear disconnect between the laws and what was right and wrong to society. It's unrealistic to expect institutions to make changes without going through the process. If Rosa Parks never went to jail there would have never been the protests which brought about change. If you think the actions by Shkreli should have strong punishment, it's a bad thing if Shkreli gets the book thrown at him artificially. You're not setting precedent and you're not fixing the system. Someone in the future will do something similar and, depending on the court, they'll get off with a slap on the wrist. You should root for things to be done by the book so that everyone can realize, "hey, this book sucks!" and it gets changed through legislation.

exabrial 9y ago

Yes. If they aren't breaking the law, they aren't breaking the law. You don't get to bend Justice to a certain outcome because of a perceived social injustice.

gaius 9y ago

I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...." But we do live in that system. That's how Google and Apple pay no taxes.

SamPatt 9y ago
What's your source on those companies paying no taxes?

to_bpr 9y ago

>I would hate to live in a system that worked by the letter and just said "Well, can't touch him, he didn't TECHNICALLY break any laws...." Your mindset is terrifying.