3 ms·

> But I would guess that most courts in world would find this type of change unconscionable. Thus unenforceable. Courts aren't moral entities, they decide if t

> But I would guess that most courts in world would find this type of change unconscionable. Thus unenforceable. Courts aren't moral entities, they decide if things are legal. Your relevant legislature is the source of morality (or lack thereof) in the law.

withinboredom 3y ago
They are much more moral than you'd think. I've had a judge push my claim to the very end to ensure there were as few people in the court room, then totally rail on the plaintive suing me for wasting everyone's time with absolute bullshit. Then, after he said his piece and made it clear there better they needed to be quite persuasive, they did indeed lose. They tried to win on a little technicality in the law but as the judge said "that is there for X reason, this is Y. It doesn't even apply, especially with ample evidence that the defendant was attempting to work with them to resolve the issue." Point is, civil court is usually quite different than criminal court; basically preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt and a judge can say that the evidence is not preponderance enough.
- parineum 3y ago
  > They are much more moral than you'd think. They aren't > that is there for X reason, this is Y. It doesn't even apply Sounds like he was applying the law and the lawyer was misinterpreting it. > a judge can say that the evidence is not preponderance enough And that's not about morality, that's about proving you broke the law. The moral levers Judges have are in the punishment (within the bounds of the law), not whether to apply the law or not.
  - withinboredom 3y ago
    If you’ve ever had to be a parent and judge between two siblings, you’d recognize how silly your comment is. All judgements are borne of three choices: to do what is right, to teach a lesson, or some combination of the two. Any judge can say “fuck you, you deserve it” and only a higher judge can overturn it (when there isn’t a jury). Any jury can, interestingly, do the exact same thing. Human rules made for humans can have all kinds of results when judged by humans.

withinboredom 3y ago

They are much more moral than you'd think. I've had a judge push my claim to the very end to ensure there were as few people in the court room, then totally rail on the plaintive suing me for wasting everyone's time with absolute bullshit. Then, after he said his piece and made it clear there better they needed to be quite persuasive, they did indeed lose. They tried to win on a little technicality in the law but as the judge said "that is there for X reason, this is Y. It doesn't even apply, especially with ample evidence that the defendant was attempting to work with them to resolve the issue." Point is, civil court is usually quite different than criminal court; basically preponderance of evidence vs. reasonable doubt and a judge can say that the evidence is not preponderance enough.

parineum 3y ago
> They are much more moral than you'd think. They aren't > that is there for X reason, this is Y. It doesn't even apply Sounds like he was applying the law and the lawyer was misinterpreting it. > a judge can say that the evidence is not preponderance enough And that's not about morality, that's about proving you broke the law. The moral levers Judges have are in the punishment (within the bounds of the law), not whether to apply the law or not.
- withinboredom 3y ago
  If you’ve ever had to be a parent and judge between two siblings, you’d recognize how silly your comment is. All judgements are borne of three choices: to do what is right, to teach a lesson, or some combination of the two. Any judge can say “fuck you, you deserve it” and only a higher judge can overturn it (when there isn’t a jury). Any jury can, interestingly, do the exact same thing. Human rules made for humans can have all kinds of results when judged by humans.