![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
Voice (and how, sorry everyone. Class is in session.)
[The voice that addresses the network is deep. An adult male. The way that he speaks indicates he might've been a professor of some sort, once. There's the intent to impart knowledge, but also to invite debate. Engage, please. This old man in the button down and lumpy sweater and thick glasses wants to know what you think.]
Good afternoon. I'm Mr. Walter White, and I'm new here. Until today, I've been an observer. But it seems like things are getting a little out of hand. Some information might help to clear this up.
Let's start by addressing the concern of the legal system here. It seems that there wasn't a need for one until recently. Before that time, people hadn't been caught harming one another. The need for regulation and intermediaries was so infrequent that people generally handled things between themselves.
That's beginning to change now, and that's alright. It's a universal fact that throwing strangers together without direction as a cohesive unit will cause some friction. The debate we're having here recently, is whether we are able to punish these outliers or not, with no established system of law.
The good news is, the very act of separating and detaining them is the first step in the process. The system that's being established here will be familiar to those who, like me, come from North America, including Canada. Anyone from the British empire, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Sri Lanka, and a handful of other countries should be aware of this system. For those who aren't, let's explain briefly.
Common law is a set of rules which are determined over time by precedent. Unlike civil law, which requires a set of codifers to be established first, [ie the list of rules such "murder shall be punished by death" that were suggested] common law allows us to examine every case individually, present it to a jury if randomly selected peers before an elected official, and allow the punishment to fit the crime. This is the form of law that tends to crop up in societies which are ruled by the people. Civil law is usually seen under the rule of a select, wealthy few, as in oligarchies.
So the question is, do we continue establishing this common law, or do we throw that out and go for civil law instead? If we decide on civil law, we must establish a ruler. While this is usually done by force or birthright claim, that system might need some work here. Then, a strict set of codifers will be needed, which will be provided by the rulers.
To establish a common law, an impartial judge must be chosen to preside over a trial, and a jury must be selected randomly, of the population without a major bias. Legal representatives aren't necessary to establish standing precedents of law here where there are none. The job of the judge and jury would be to determine fairly what sort of punishment best fits each individual, and why.
The most important factor in a common law is a fair trial by a jury of unbiased peers, to clearly establish guilt and the need for a reasonable punishment to be set by a publicly appointed judge. It's similar to what Ms. Roslyn proposed, but it doesn't require anyone to step up and claim authority without public assent.
Of course, law isn't about making everyone happy. It's about establishing order. But stable systems usually are that way because the population largely considers them just. Systems considered to be unjust by the general population usually fall into the trap of anarchy, breaking and remaking themselves repeatedly from within.
Good afternoon. I'm Mr. Walter White, and I'm new here. Until today, I've been an observer. But it seems like things are getting a little out of hand. Some information might help to clear this up.
Let's start by addressing the concern of the legal system here. It seems that there wasn't a need for one until recently. Before that time, people hadn't been caught harming one another. The need for regulation and intermediaries was so infrequent that people generally handled things between themselves.
That's beginning to change now, and that's alright. It's a universal fact that throwing strangers together without direction as a cohesive unit will cause some friction. The debate we're having here recently, is whether we are able to punish these outliers or not, with no established system of law.
The good news is, the very act of separating and detaining them is the first step in the process. The system that's being established here will be familiar to those who, like me, come from North America, including Canada. Anyone from the British empire, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Sri Lanka, and a handful of other countries should be aware of this system. For those who aren't, let's explain briefly.
Common law is a set of rules which are determined over time by precedent. Unlike civil law, which requires a set of codifers to be established first, [ie the list of rules such "murder shall be punished by death" that were suggested] common law allows us to examine every case individually, present it to a jury if randomly selected peers before an elected official, and allow the punishment to fit the crime. This is the form of law that tends to crop up in societies which are ruled by the people. Civil law is usually seen under the rule of a select, wealthy few, as in oligarchies.
So the question is, do we continue establishing this common law, or do we throw that out and go for civil law instead? If we decide on civil law, we must establish a ruler. While this is usually done by force or birthright claim, that system might need some work here. Then, a strict set of codifers will be needed, which will be provided by the rulers.
To establish a common law, an impartial judge must be chosen to preside over a trial, and a jury must be selected randomly, of the population without a major bias. Legal representatives aren't necessary to establish standing precedents of law here where there are none. The job of the judge and jury would be to determine fairly what sort of punishment best fits each individual, and why.
The most important factor in a common law is a fair trial by a jury of unbiased peers, to clearly establish guilt and the need for a reasonable punishment to be set by a publicly appointed judge. It's similar to what Ms. Roslyn proposed, but it doesn't require anyone to step up and claim authority without public assent.
Of course, law isn't about making everyone happy. It's about establishing order. But stable systems usually are that way because the population largely considers them just. Systems considered to be unjust by the general population usually fall into the trap of anarchy, breaking and remaking themselves repeatedly from within.
no subject
If the established laws in your system kept perfect order, your population has a different type of will than my species. If you have an argument in favor of civil law, let's hear it. There are no wrong answers in an open forum, just different life experiences.
no subject
Now, to clarify. Yes, I do attest to the reasoning that screening a 'jury', as you would have it, would yield biased results. It's natural to assume anyone would know that it's absolutely possible for this to happen routinely. However, the concerns of any rational person should be that the general populace, in its vying for fairness, is on a plateau of falsehoods in the first place. What good would screening be when our... status quo... is completely wrong?