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.
I’m a retired psychiatrist and I’m schooled in philosophy, so feel free to wax technical, as I’m perfectly at home with Aristotle, Kant or Bentham when it comes to ethics, or Descartes and Wittgenstein on epistemology. Given that you lacked even the most abecedarian knowledge on how laws are made, it’s a bit rich that you deign to lecture me on ignorance.
Perhaps start by making your point less vague. You said a ‘precedent is set against what is established’. I’ve explained that a precedent (in the legal sense) is indeed set against what is established (prevailing interpretations of relevant legislation) during a court case. So what’s your point exactly?
You're easily riled for someone who pretends to be the age you are. Perhaps you are younger. If not, I worry because you sound like a 14 year old with a text book. Reading some words and pretending they have a deep understanding based on, well, just reading stuff.
By "established", I did mean things beyond your law book, your purview, your nation, and your mind. I meant established in the sense that may be actually established. However, if you want to limit it and then blame me for that very limitation, you would not be the first.
up skirt photos
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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
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.
--
Perdition
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I’m a retired psychiatrist and I’m schooled in philosophy, so feel free to wax technical, as I’m perfectly at home with Aristotle, Kant or Bentham when it comes to ethics, or Descartes and Wittgenstein on epistemology. Given that you lacked even the most abecedarian knowledge on how laws are made, it’s a bit rich that you deign to lecture me on ignorance.
Perhaps start by making your point less vague. You said a ‘precedent is set against what is established’. I’ve explained that a precedent (in the legal sense) is indeed set against what is established (prevailing interpretations of relevant legislation) during a court case. So what’s your point exactly?
--
tuple
6 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
See More Comments =>
You're easily riled for someone who pretends to be the age you are. Perhaps you are younger. If not, I worry because you sound like a 14 year old with a text book. Reading some words and pretending they have a deep understanding based on, well, just reading stuff.
By "established", I did mean things beyond your law book, your purview, your nation, and your mind. I meant established in the sense that may be actually established. However, if you want to limit it and then blame me for that very limitation, you would not be the first.