4 ms·
Well said. And if you're going down the "justice not blind" route, why even stop at income? "Your honour, I may have just killed a man but let me assure you th
by seertaak 17y ago
Well said.
And if you're going down the "justice not blind" route, why even stop at income? "Your honour, I may have just killed a man but let me assure you that my high school years were very traumatic. I was bullied and got bad grades."
- furyg3 17y agoYou're confused. We're talking about monetary compensation to another party (damages) in a civil court, not a criminal murder case. This may save some embarrassment in the future: http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/60793/civil_criminal_court_cases_the_differences.html http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/60793/civil_crimina...
- seertaak 17y agoSorry, it is indeed you who is confused. My point is that the law treats all individuals equally. Your link was interesting, but nowhere therein did I see any mention of this basic tenet changing when we move from a criminal to a civil case. Justice is portrayed as a blind person for a reason; and it doesn't matter an iota if you're talking about civil or criminal law. And, in any case, the comment I was replying to used the example of car theft, which manifestly would involve a criminal case. My analogy is perfectly valid; it is you who ought be emabarrassed!