3 ms·

What do you mean the worst of several options? The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed. Having the judge "making it up" as he goes, and then anothe

What do you mean the worst of several options? The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed. Having the judge "making it up" as he goes, and then another judge using that sentence 120 years later as precedent like in american courts sounds insane

junon 3y ago
What you describe does not match reality.
- Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
  Townshend v Townshend is a ruling from 1848 still being quoted. Citing Slavery Project did an analysis and found 18% of all current cases in courts either quote slavery rulings or are less than 2 steps removed (quote a ruling that quotes the slavery ruling).
  - junon 3y ago
    Not sure how that's relevant. > The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed. That's the part that doesn't match reality.
    - Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
      > That's the part that doesn't match reality. I mean Spain recently had a big case related to a group sexual assault. Society was up in arms about the ruling (minimum sentence was 1 year, max was like 6) So the law was amended and now sexual violence has a maximum sentence of 15 years which is more in line with other european countries.
- reddit_refugee3 3y ago
  [flagged]
denton-scratch 3y ago
The law, as it's written down, often fails to match closely the particular circumstances of a specific case. Maybe it never gives an exact match. So judges and juries have to interpret the law. That's the reality, whatever legal system you have. "Precedent" is a way of saving the time of courts and lawyers, by not having to argue the same details every time they come up. And it's not as if every court judgement becomes a precedent; only higher courts can set precedents, and they can only be overturned by higher courts still. I think this is a reasonable way of approaching justice.
- Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
  All of that is easy to contemplate. You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances (things that make the situation worse or better for the defendant) And on top of that you have a window for sentencing. So if murder is lets say 4-20 years in jail. And you were drunk, that makes it worse, but it was not premeditated, and this and that it all adds up and you might 6 years or you might get 18 depending on the circumstances. This also allows the law to be rewritten from scratch instead of being based on whatever higher court thought in the 1800s.
  - denton-scratch 3y ago
    > You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances You do; but that's not actually what I was thinking about. That's just about sentencing, and here (the UK) sentencing doesn't fall within the purview of precedent; there are sentencing guidelines set by senior members of the judiciary. I was thinking of actual points of law, such as what constitutes unreasonable behaviour, or whether possession of some quantity X of illegal drugs is conclusive evidence of intent to supply. > whatever higher court thought in the 1800s It's open to higher courts to overturn precedents, if they've become outdated to the extent they no longer make sense. The very old precedents are presumably precedents that make so much sense that nobody has successfully challenged them. If someone runs into an adverse judgement based on an ancient precedent that is unsupportable, no doubt there's some barrister that would like to make their case (and their reputation) at appeal, by overturning it.

junon 3y ago

What you describe does not match reality.

Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
Townshend v Townshend is a ruling from 1848 still being quoted. Citing Slavery Project did an analysis and found 18% of all current cases in courts either quote slavery rulings or are less than 2 steps removed (quote a ruling that quotes the slavery ruling).
- junon 3y ago
  Not sure how that's relevant. > The law is the law, if it's unfair it gets changed. That's the part that doesn't match reality.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
    > That's the part that doesn't match reality. I mean Spain recently had a big case related to a group sexual assault. Society was up in arms about the ruling (minimum sentence was 1 year, max was like 6) So the law was amended and now sexual violence has a maximum sentence of 15 years which is more in line with other european countries.
reddit_refugee3 3y ago
[flagged]

denton-scratch 3y ago

The law, as it's written down, often fails to match closely the particular circumstances of a specific case. Maybe it never gives an exact match. So judges and juries have to interpret the law. That's the reality, whatever legal system you have. "Precedent" is a way of saving the time of courts and lawyers, by not having to argue the same details every time they come up. And it's not as if every court judgement becomes a precedent; only higher courts can set precedents, and they can only be overturned by higher courts still. I think this is a reasonable way of approaching justice.

Arkhaine_kupo 3y ago
All of that is easy to contemplate. You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances (things that make the situation worse or better for the defendant) And on top of that you have a window for sentencing. So if murder is lets say 4-20 years in jail. And you were drunk, that makes it worse, but it was not premeditated, and this and that it all adds up and you might 6 years or you might get 18 depending on the circumstances. This also allows the law to be rewritten from scratch instead of being based on whatever higher court thought in the 1800s.
- denton-scratch 3y ago
  > You have extenuating and aggravating circumstances You do; but that's not actually what I was thinking about. That's just about sentencing, and here (the UK) sentencing doesn't fall within the purview of precedent; there are sentencing guidelines set by senior members of the judiciary. I was thinking of actual points of law, such as what constitutes unreasonable behaviour, or whether possession of some quantity X of illegal drugs is conclusive evidence of intent to supply. > whatever higher court thought in the 1800s It's open to higher courts to overturn precedents, if they've become outdated to the extent they no longer make sense. The very old precedents are presumably precedents that make so much sense that nobody has successfully challenged them. If someone runs into an adverse judgement based on an ancient precedent that is unsupportable, no doubt there's some barrister that would like to make their case (and their reputation) at appeal, by overturning it.