2 ms·
> 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 a
by 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 agoIf 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.