You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Week 6 debate topic - Spirit vs Letter of the law
wow, I sorta love this! They did the physical act but did not read into it enough, and therefore used it to their advantage. This is a good example. What is keeping the courts from using the definitions and word of law in the same way? They could be doing great injustices of spirit, but are still following the law. hmmmm.
Yes. I've seen many cases where people are speaking in court and due to their own ignorance spoke of words in the wrong context or misunderstood their meaning. The judges see it, but don't ask to clarify. Instead they use their ignorance against them. The judges too are supposed to protect the vulnerable, but they don't. Lawyers are the same way, which does not surprise me as judges were once lawyers. What moral responsibility do they have if they witness ignorance? Are they there to teach or just pass judgement? I think we all have a duty and obligation to confront people's ignorance.
Yet it should not matter the words being spoken, it is the meaning behind the words, as they are believed to be by the man speaking them, that count. That was part of common law. So a judge who chooses not to take the words in the spirit that they were meant, but instead uses their lack of knowledge against them is going against the common law.
You cannot unknowingly break a law, because there has to be intent for that law to be broken. This is why someone who does not know the culture of the people and unknowingly breaks their laws is called an idiot and cannot and should not be punished for his or her ignorance.
Ecellent, i'm so pleased you remembered this - there are 3 parts to breaking a law,
All three need to be proved for a guilty verdict in court of law. In a common law court, you are innocent until proven guilty, and in an administrative court with acts and statutes, you are automatically guilty until you prove your innocence. Not knowing the difference between the two courts and which jurisdiction you are in can see you loosing lots of money especially on lawyers. Lawyers that have taken an oath to the bar and who's first obligation is to the court and not the client. If you know what you are doing in court , a judge will run two courts at the same time which can be confusing if you don't know if you are a man or a person. And just to explain the term idiot that you used for the other readers, it comes from the Greek idios which originally translated as "personal, private," properly "particular to oneself." before it was changed with new meanings to what we now believe is something akin to fool.
I'm a bit of topic for the debate but
Is a guilty mind truly required ? I have never heard that and will have look into it.
The problem with this is so many offenders don't have a guilty mind in fact lack of remorse is common.
Unless it means intent in which case I understand
See if i can remember the Latin,
i believe all 3 must be proved in common law. Please check definition of Actus Reus in a dictionary, this should help.
Looks like you got it right. I'm going to really enjoy our conversations brother! hahahaha. I love it when somebody know their stuff! Welcome to the debate. Now if we can keep it on topic, that would be wonderful! ;)