Quote:
In every lawsuit or trail you have a lawyer 'defending' the guilty or loosing position - think about it -how often do you see a guilty person plead guilty?
lawyers consider it their job to get the best possible judgement for their client - doenst matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault.
|
And such is their job ... and no, it doesn't matter if their client is wrong, guilty or at fault! We have an adversarial legal system -- one advocate for the accused and one advocate for the victim. Throughout the centuries it's been found out that this works best; afterall, what kind of country would it be if my lawyer wasn't concerned with my best interest? I think you are complaining about people getting off on "technicalities" and such ... but it is these "technicalities" that keep the government from busting down your door! I know people complain when some criminal gets off because the police mishandled the evidence, or something else ... but these rules/procedures are in place to protect
you. It's one of those funny little ideas that liberty should be preserved (albeit the concept seems to be dying out these days).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grommit
We dislike the approach to law that involves drawing precise conclusions from the wording, and we dislike the approach to writing law that creates this wording. We dislike the mentality of trying to find loopholes and we dislike the mentality of trying to find contradictions.
...
The answer lies in FIRST and Gracious Professionalism. We don't see the necessity of precision in lawwriting or law interpretation. ... We see it as Gracious that teams should observe what most reasonably appears to fall within the legitimate boundaries of the intent of the game. We see it as professional to abide by the referees' ruling...
|
This wonderful idea about GP and not needing "precision in lawwriting" works fine for the very small scale and relatively unimportant FIRST competition. But you can't be advocating this on a large scale can you? For say, the nation's laws? It's hard enough for people to understand the laws as they are passed now ... but not only do you want them to know what the law says, but now they've got to interpret the "spirit" and figure out what 535 bandits meant -- and it's very likely that they all had different intentions. Oh, and then it would just be wonderful if we trusted every judge and let his decision be final -- 'cause, as you know, judges are above normal people, they're perfect and never make any mistakes or hold any grudges. The idea of specific laws is that people know what they have to do. If this is not the case you give the judge a very wide lattitude; you give the judge the power to convict anybody for anything. You can talk about GP, but the world ain't gracious or professional -- people are rotten ... that's the premise the constitution was written under, anyway, and I'd trust that a lot more than blindly trusting any judge to protect my rights. To summarize, my point is that all that "precision" and "loophole"-finding is necessary ... it might not sound glamorous, but without lawyers here to keep it all in check, believe it or not, our society would be in utter chaos!