3 ms·

Except humans, business and politics are far too complex to encapsulate in laws, at least in their current format. Look at a "simple" case in the news today. S

Except humans, business and politics are far too complex to encapsulate in laws, at least in their current format. Look at a "simple" case in the news today. Several men who were abused in the 1970s have lost their case against Manchester City Football club who they say were responsible for the "scout" who abused them. If it was really simple, there would be no case. However, the Judge rules that at the time of the abuse, the man (who is currently in prison) was not officially a member of Man City staff so they are not liable vicariously for his actions. I think something that is lacking in the UK at least, is more like a Charter for Society. What is it that we accept and don't accept. It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. Don't know, just a thought.

jimbokun 5y ago
> It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. What do you mean by Charter for Society? A Constitution? Doesn't this just devolve to the same problem? If the law doesn't address a specific scenario, what makes you think the charter will?
- lbriner 5y ago
  I'm just thinking there are times where there is a violent assault, for example, perhaps the person has previous and is basically a horrible person who was winding someone up or just doing stuff that most people would be disgusted with. Only some of that is easy to capture in law. If a constitution/charter had something like "Our society does not accept people who are unecessarily aggressive or quick to get violent", then the perpetrator doesn't get away with it because they didn't actually hurt someone or reach the burden for proving "fear of violence" needed for assault. Don't know. Probably not realistic but at least then a society could know how infrastructure, government and public services are directed; people who want to immigrate can see clearly that e.g. "We respect the rule of law and property" so that they don't think it is OK to not pay tax, to not insure their car etc; and also for people who are a pain because they are just selfish and do things that rub people up the wrong way, "we are mindful that the community is more important than the individual and the community can decide that they don't like what you are doing even if it isn't illegal"
  - jimbokun 5y ago
    > Only some of that is easy to capture in law. I think these kinds of things are captured in law all the time. Giving judges recommended sentencing guidelines but with leeway for discretion in a specific case. Distinguishing between assault and aggravated assault and battery, murder and manslaughter, etc.

jimbokun 5y ago

> It would be much easier in Court if a ruling is made not just on the letter of a law that might not have thought of the specific scenario, not on common law of something that was close enough to this case but on whether it violates the charter. What do you mean by Charter for Society? A Constitution? Doesn't this just devolve to the same problem? If the law doesn't address a specific scenario, what makes you think the charter will?

lbriner 5y ago
I'm just thinking there are times where there is a violent assault, for example, perhaps the person has previous and is basically a horrible person who was winding someone up or just doing stuff that most people would be disgusted with. Only some of that is easy to capture in law. If a constitution/charter had something like "Our society does not accept people who are unecessarily aggressive or quick to get violent", then the perpetrator doesn't get away with it because they didn't actually hurt someone or reach the burden for proving "fear of violence" needed for assault. Don't know. Probably not realistic but at least then a society could know how infrastructure, government and public services are directed; people who want to immigrate can see clearly that e.g. "We respect the rule of law and property" so that they don't think it is OK to not pay tax, to not insure their car etc; and also for people who are a pain because they are just selfish and do things that rub people up the wrong way, "we are mindful that the community is more important than the individual and the community can decide that they don't like what you are doing even if it isn't illegal"
- jimbokun 5y ago
  > Only some of that is easy to capture in law. I think these kinds of things are captured in law all the time. Giving judges recommended sentencing guidelines but with leeway for discretion in a specific case. Distinguishing between assault and aggravated assault and battery, murder and manslaughter, etc.