2006-12-09 08:46:32 · 3 answers · asked by Petal J 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
This is a bit of a challenge. I contend, my learned friend, that you are attempting to obtain an essay answer by means of Deception. Were I to answer your question, I would be putting myself in the position of abetting a Principle in either the Tort of Plagiarism, or attempting to pervert the course of justice by eliciting or supplying information that is not in the public domain for the purpose of assisting the comission of a Felony. Furthermore, I would also be in the invidious position of committing an offence by my creation of a principal, where, prior to the question being posed, and subject to the the rigours and demands of mutatis mutandi, no such principal would have existed.
I therefore ask, your Honour, that a Newton Hearing is convened forthwith, to ascertain and finalise the evidence on which the trial will be based.
2006-12-09 10:02:08 · answer #1 · answered by ? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not forgetting that the judgement (precedent) is made by a Person(s).
Critically, this hierarchal Person(s) (in the UK) is appointed. In a democracy, it could be argued that this Person should actually be elected. The House of Lords is the final Court of Appeal.
2006-12-09 22:17:24 · answer #2 · answered by Perseus 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It should work. If you treat one man, one way, in one situation, then you must treat all men in that situation the same way.
The problem is the lawyers who twist precedent to get the guilty off.
2006-12-12 17:32:43 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋