It's technically not illegal, but it's certainly morally dubious and something I feel strongly about. We can actually change the law on this if there is a test case. I think your friend has been violated and, if she feels strongly enough, should take this further.
There won't be a test case precisely because it's not illegal. Things go to court when the CPS are of the opinion that there's sufficient evidence that a law or laws has/have been broken and it is in the public interest to prosecute.
But isn't a test case about changing the law? The fact that it's not illegal now is beneficial. Precedents can only be set against what is established.
No. The law is not changed in court, it's changed in Parliament. Precedents refer to case law, which is about past decisions in terms of interpretation of the law, but cases don't end up in court without an existing law being broken in the first place.
I did some research. You're right. Although I'm not going to back down on the idea that precedents are set against what is established, given that I didn't define the parameters of what establishment is.
Yes, precedents are set in court. Let's take the example of downloading illegal pornography. Police examine the perpetrator's hard drives. They manage to recover 1,000 images, but it is clear these had already been deleted. Can the perpetrator be prosecuted successfully? There was a 'test case' on this, with the prosecution arguing that the images were still feasibly available to the defendant by means of recovery software, whereas the defence argued that he didn't have such software. The point here was not whether illegal images were or were not illegal; it wouldn't have gone to court in the first place without a law being broken. The point was whether or not the defendant could be said to possess those images once deleted, and the judge eventually ruled in favour of the defence, thereby setting a precedent. In all subsequent cases, this precedent has influenced interpretation of the law. But again, precedents are not about creating laws, they're about establishing ways of interpreting existing laws and of applying them to specific cases.
I feel like I'm constantly restating my thesis here. How is a "precedent" not set against what is "established" given that establishment is open to multiple interpretations? I accept it is true in the singular interpretation you keep going back to, but I prefer to make statements that are true of everything rather than just the law of a tiny scrap of land on a small planet in a small system in a small galaxy. I think that's the crux of it. I'm looking for the universal and you are looking at criminalising people who live around the corner from you. I think both points of view are valid. Someone like you is necessary to do a bit of local cleaning and tidying. You're a garbage disposal person, and it's natural you would feel quite intimidated by philosophers and the like. I apologise if I've made you feel bad about your brain. I'm sure it's probably average or above for people in your line of work.
up skirt photos
← View full post
It's technically not illegal, but it's certainly morally dubious and something I feel strongly about. We can actually change the law on this if there is a test case. I think your friend has been violated and, if she feels strongly enough, should take this further.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
There won't be a test case precisely because it's not illegal. Things go to court when the CPS are of the opinion that there's sufficient evidence that a law or laws has/have been broken and it is in the public interest to prosecute.
--
tuple
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
But isn't a test case about changing the law? The fact that it's not illegal now is beneficial. Precedents can only be set against what is established.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
No. The law is not changed in court, it's changed in Parliament. Precedents refer to case law, which is about past decisions in terms of interpretation of the law, but cases don't end up in court without an existing law being broken in the first place.
--
tuple
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I did some research. You're right. Although I'm not going to back down on the idea that precedents are set against what is established, given that I didn't define the parameters of what establishment is.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Yes, precedents are set in court. Let's take the example of downloading illegal pornography. Police examine the perpetrator's hard drives. They manage to recover 1,000 images, but it is clear these had already been deleted. Can the perpetrator be prosecuted successfully? There was a 'test case' on this, with the prosecution arguing that the images were still feasibly available to the defendant by means of recovery software, whereas the defence argued that he didn't have such software. The point here was not whether illegal images were or were not illegal; it wouldn't have gone to court in the first place without a law being broken. The point was whether or not the defendant could be said to possess those images once deleted, and the judge eventually ruled in favour of the defence, thereby setting a precedent. In all subsequent cases, this precedent has influenced interpretation of the law. But again, precedents are not about creating laws, they're about establishing ways of interpreting existing laws and of applying them to specific cases.
--
tuple
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
I feel like I'm constantly restating my thesis here. How is a "precedent" not set against what is "established" given that establishment is open to multiple interpretations? I accept it is true in the singular interpretation you keep going back to, but I prefer to make statements that are true of everything rather than just the law of a tiny scrap of land on a small planet in a small system in a small galaxy. I think that's the crux of it. I'm looking for the universal and you are looking at criminalising people who live around the corner from you. I think both points of view are valid. Someone like you is necessary to do a bit of local cleaning and tidying. You're a garbage disposal person, and it's natural you would feel quite intimidated by philosophers and the like. I apologise if I've made you feel bad about your brain. I'm sure it's probably average or above for people in your line of work.