4 ms·
You're reading the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I meant that what's true of assault now has been true the entire history of the English judic
by graeme 9y ago
You're reading the least charitable interpretation of what I said. I meant that what's true of assault now has been true the entire history of the English judicial system - that's why the sentence preceding the one you quoted said the system has been like this since time immemorial. So it's not a new law. Can you point to a time in the past when common assault was treated differently? I think it's something intrinsic to the offense itself.
This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Assault is far more likely to be a situation where there is reasonable doubt and no conviction, because of the lack of evidence typically associated with the offence.
In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am.
- Sir_Substance 9y ago>In short, I think you're believing me to be saying something quite different than I am. It's possible that you /meant/ something different, but everyone can read what you said. What you say matters my friend. >This has nothing to do with jury nullification. That's a situation where conviction is certain, unless the jury finds the law unjust. Nonsense, jury nullification is inherently intertwined with this topic, because if we're writing laws that may be unjust in order to ensure that they cast as wide a potential prosecutorial net as possible, the only defense that the citizenry has against a corrupt bureaucracy is consistent defiance via jury nullification. The problem is, consistency is incredibly hard to achieve across a whole population, which is why we should not be writing laws that can be abused by the corrupt.