This question is specifically but not entirely confined to when they quote the McDonald's hot coffee case as case and point,literally.
Without knowing the surrounding circumstances that led to that jugdment which, is more complex than most lay people tend to appreciate and, is actually sound law.Should people if they want to make a point, especially in law, know the full facts first?
2007-09-27 11:54:48 · 9 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
The law can at times be an *** (is Y!A going to censor that word? Should I write donkey?), and will continue to be so, but it's better than the alternative.
Law has to deal in black and white issues so there will always be marginal cases, subtle shades of grey, which when the law is applied to the letter, make the law look silly. But until we come up with a better idea, let's stick with the law working in the majority of cases, but occasionally not bringing justice.
2007-09-27 12:01:55 · answer #1 · answered by Mr Sceptic 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It was once said (I don't know exactly by whom) that a person who represents their self in court has a fool for a client. Our justice system is designed (supposedly) to protect not only the innocent but the guilty as well so it's no wonder many of us feel like the law is unfair. The best thing to do is to hope that you will never be in a situation where you have to rely on the "law of the land" to prove or disprove your innocence.
2007-09-27 19:25:16 · answer #2 · answered by Emissary 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why especially in law? Why not expect people to know something about what they are expressing an opinion about regarding any topic?
It's so easy to look at things superficially and call them silly, when if you actually dug beneath the surface those things are far from silly.
2007-09-27 18:59:20 · answer #3 · answered by treebird 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You are proposing some First Amendment restriction to protect the "name" of the law?
If it looks like a pig, smells like a pig, etc... people will aways call it a pig.
2007-09-27 18:59:05 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes I call the a total f***ed up state of affaires as its only when they want to make an issue that law is exercised untill then peole seem to break it everyday without being repremanded, in other words law only seems to apply when the authority wants it to....
2007-09-27 18:58:42 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
'SHOULD" implys requirements. People may make good judgements just as well as bad judgements. Who is to judge the decisions as 'good' or 'bad', 'allowed' or 'disallowed'.
2007-09-27 18:59:06 · answer #6 · answered by khorat k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Who cares. You're asking pointless questions.
2007-09-27 19:04:04 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
i think in some cases it needs to be said!
2007-09-27 19:06:11 · answer #8 · answered by lilian c 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What else can you call it?
2007-09-27 18:59:00 · answer #9 · answered by Beau Brummell 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋