Just to stir the pot, has anyone noticed...

[Jake]

They don't, though, do they? No one should have to interpret a law, no matter in what sphere - indeed no one should be able to.

Life doesn't work like that, much as you might want everything to be 'simples', it just isn't, it's complicated. No one ever anywhere has come up with a completely codified legal system because it is literally impossible to do that.

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Life doesn't work like that, much as you might want everything to be 'simples', it just isn't, it's complicated. No one ever anywhere has come up with a completely codified legal system because it is literally impossible to do that.

There is a fundamental difference - making moral judgements running counter to unambiguous criminality (wrong), and making judgements where the legislation is either absent or inconclusive (entirely reasonable).

 

[Jacob]

There is a fundamental difference - making moral judgements running counter to unambiguous criminality (wrong), and making judgements where the legislation is either absent or inconclusive (entirely reasonable).

Couple of moral judgements there!
Don't moral judgements come first, the law just an attempt to codify them?
"Unambiguous criminality" sounds like a pipe dream.

 

[highwood122]

Surely the real problem lies not with the problem itself nor indeed any of the proposed solutions which different contributors have offered up through this thread.

The real problem is the inability of the people to effect change until some sort of societal fulcrum point is reached.
What is offered to quell our unease is a constrained and manicured choice of 1 or 2 political parties with a smattering of hopeful others offered up not just for ridicule but to catch a few stray thinkers. like an alternating current sine wave this choice floats neatly between two supposedly opposite, yet strangely similar political objectives.

Sadly as I get older I have realised that despite all the encouragement from parents and career advisors along the way, one cannot "make a difference" on one's own.

Difference cannot be achieved without a mass movement of minds and willing. Brexit was rightly or wrongly a case in point, but was quickly stifled by the collective establishment as they panicked like rabbits in the headlights.

My school boy understanding was that the House of Commons was made up of Common people, normal everyday representatives of their respective communities overseen and gently steered by the independent, respected wise and lofty who sat in the house of Lords, a group who had earned respect and nomination by showing their trustworthiness and willing to put the others first.

What we actually have is a house full of multi millionaire career politicians most of whom have not a single sense or understanding of real life. They lie and cheat to further their own personal fortunes, pushing their co conspirators into the 'upper house' to ensure continued access to the trough.


I'm not sure we are pitchfork stage but at some point a mass of minds and willing is in my humble opinion surely needed.

we moved on from one person making a difference.

 

[stuart little]

That's the point. The law should be simple and not have loopholes.

It's rather like "interpreting" the law - it should be written that it can't be interpreted. Something is either legal or it isn't.

As the 'man' said; "The Law is an ***".

 

[Terry - Somerset]

Couple of moral judgements there!
Don't moral judgements come first, the law just an attempt to codify them?
"Unambiguous criminality" sounds like a pipe dream.

Unambiguous criminality is not a pipe dream.

Guilt in criminal cases needs to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt". In both cases (Colston and climate protests) there is no ambiguity in that criminal damage occurred, and in one case (possibly both) the defendants even admitted such!

 

[Jacob]

Unambiguous criminality is not a pipe dream.

Guilt in criminal cases needs to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt". In both cases (Colston and climate protests) there is no ambiguity in that criminal damage occurred, and in one case (possibly both) the defendants even admitted such!

The jury decided that the damage was not a criminal act in the circumstances.
"On 5 January 2022 the jury acquitted the four defendants. A range of defences was run at trial. The defence with which this reference is concerned was whether conviction for the damage done to the statue was a disproportionate interference with the defendants' right to protest."

Personally I thought the removal of the brilliant Mark Quin replacement was a criminal act!

"A Surge of Power (Jen Reid)"

 

[niall Y]

But in theory we have the power a.k.a. "democracy".

Not really a true democracy - more an elected oligarchy . We have all seen what happens when the public themselves get to cast their vote on actual issues. And it didn't prove to be parliaments finest hour, either.

 

[JimJay]

I've been led to believe that 'Legal Documents' refrain from using punctuation because that then leaves them open to 'interpretation' by the profession, depending upon the prevailing circumstance.

I'm afraid that you've been misinformed - although you're by no means alone. Legal documents are, and have always been, punctuated, albeit sparingly; the object, as in any piece of written English prior to the rise of our present-day generation of illiterati, has always been to clarify the meaning. The notion of legal statutes etc being drafted unpunctuated, with the punctuation added later by printers who fancied themselves as arbiters of grammar, is but another urban myth.

 

[Jacob]

...... The notion of legal statutes etc being drafted unpunctuated, with the punctuation added later by printers who fancied themselves as arbiters of grammar, is but another urban myth.

Never heard of that one, did you make it up yourself?
It is a simple fact that some legal docs were composed to make sense without punctuation - I quoted an example above, from the deeds to our previous property, one of several which were unpunctuated. I don't know how extensive this was or whether or not it continues in any way.

 

[JimJay]

Never heard of that one, did you make it up yourself?
It is a simple fact that some legal docs were composed to make sense without punctuation - I quoted an example above, from the deeds to our previous property, one of several which were unpunctuated. I don't know how extensive this was or whether or not it continues in any way.

While you're rolling on the floor, you might want to brush up your reading skills. A property deed isn't a statute, unless you're Bonnie King Charlie in mufti. The fact that you've "never heard of that one" is down to ignorance, which is easily remedied once your mirth has subsided and you're back on your feet. It may be that the deed you refer to is drafted clearly and concisely so as not to require any punctuation - for someone with a decent command of English that's not exactly a tough job. Moreover, there was indeed a belief among lawyers, mistaken as my Real Property professor was at pains to explain to us Law students, that deeds and statutes were required to be unpunctuated but in fact that belief was erroneous. It's even been the subject of some research, which has shown him to be entirely correct.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt your rolling on the floor - feel free to get back to it.....

 

[Jacob]

While you're rolling on the floor, you might want to brush up your reading skills. A property deed isn't a statute, unless you're Bonnie King Charlie in mufti. The fact that you've "never heard of that one" is down to ignorance, which is easily remedied once your mirth has subsided and you're back on your feet. It may be that the deed you refer to is drafted clearly and concisely so as not to require any punctuation - for someone with a decent command of English that's not exactly a tough job. Moreover, there was indeed a belief among lawyers, mistaken as my Real Property professor was at pains to explain to us Law students, that deeds and statutes were required to be unpunctuated but in fact that belief was erroneous. It's even been the subject of some research, which has shown him to be entirely correct.

Anyway, sorry to interrupt your rolling on the floor - feel free to get back to it.....

Nevertheless - some legal docs were composed to make sense without punctuation. It is not a myth.

 

[JimJay]

Nevertheless - some legal docs were composed to make sense without punctuation. It is not a myth.

The myth is that they were REQUIRED to be, on the spurious grounds that lack of punctuation makes the intended meaning completely clear; the reality is entirely opposite - correct punctuation, and accurate drafting, are what remove all possibility of ambiguity and "interpretation"...

 

[Jacob]

The myth is that they were REQUIRED to be, on the spurious grounds that lack of punctuation makes the intended meaning completely clear; the reality is entirely opposite - correct punctuation, and accurate drafting, are what remove all possibility of ambiguity and "interpretation"...

No it's the other way around. The lack of punctuation does not itself make the meaning clear, but makes it incumbent on the writer to make it clear without punctuation, so that it can't subsequently be altered by altering the punctuation.
The example I gave above is typical and I had several similar docs done the same way. Fairly common practice when all was hand written.

 

[JimJay]

No it's the other way around. The lack of punctuation does not itself make the meaning clear, but makes it incumbent on the writer to make it clear without punctuation, so that it can't subsequently be altered by altering the punctuation.
The example I gave above is typical and I had several similar docs done the same way. Fairly common practice when all was hand written.

I'm sure that what you're saying makes perfect sense to you, but unfortunately it doesn't affect the reality of legal documents, or indeed of the English language. There have been countless court cases hinging on the ambiguity of unpunctuated documents, with the actual meaning being a matter of interpretation in the absence of any uncontested indication of intent. You might like to take a look at "The Case of the $5million Comma" (https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/09/us/oxford-comma-maine.html) from a few years ago, for example - and there are literally hundreds of others from all over the English-speaking world. It's not a question of "The lack of punctuation does not itself make the meaning clear", the lack of punctuation very often makes the meaning entirely unclear, especially when each of the parties to a contract can claim that they only signed it because of how THEY interpreted it....and we've all read countless reports of court cases which have been decided by judges or juries who appear to live in another, totally illogical world to the rest of us...

 

[Yorkieguy]

Unambiguous criminality is not a pipe dream.

Guilt in criminal cases needs to be proved "beyond all reasonable doubt". In both cases (Colston and climate protests) there is no ambiguity in that criminal damage occurred, and in one case (possibly both) the defendants even admitted such!

I would agree that here have been lots of 'perverse verdicts' in recent times, particularly with climate change protestors and the like being found not guilty of criminal damage, where their claimed 'valid defence' was (in my view), ludicrous and gives the green light for more of the same.

But for clarification as to proof, criminal cases do not have to be proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt, because if that were so, those deciding on guilt or innocence, would have had to witness the crime. The standard for criminal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's a high standard of proof and any reasonable doubt must go in the defendant's favour. (In civil cases, the standard of proof is much lower 'On the balance of probability'. On that standard, people who would be found guilty are found not guilty to the criminal standard, just as there have been notable miscarriages of justice where evidence which would have cast doubt in favour of the defendant, has been withheld by prosecutors. (Think 'Post Office')

There are three elements as to what constitutes a 'crime':

1) Did the accused commit the act? (Known in law as 'Actus Reus'. An action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused. "failure to prevent death may be the actus reus of the offence of manslaughter".

2) 'Mens rea'. Was the act committed with a criminal state of mind? Properly translated the term means “criminal intention”, or an intention to do the act which is penal by statute or the common law. It embraces any mental element that may be an ingredient of a criminal offence, eg recklessness, knowledge.

3) The absence of a valid defence.

There are some offences where there's no need to prove the second element (A criminal act done intentionally). Such offences are known as .'Absolute Offences'. Namely, if you commit the act you are guilty with no defence. Examples are speeding offences ('It wasn't a deliberant intention to flout the law - my speed just drifted up in a moment of inattentiveness (from 30 to 45MPH?). No car insurance: 'I'd moved house, had told my car insurance company, but they failed to notify me that my car insurance renewal was due'.

There are other cases in which there can be a valid defence. Self defence for example, if facing an attack. Many may recall the case of Tony Martin, the farmer convicted of murder for killing a burglar and causing grievous bodily harm to another. There was much public sympathy for the farmer and none for the criminals, but do bear in mind that it was a jury that convicted him.

English law at the time permitted a person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending themselves using no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used. The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority. It was later reduce to manslaughter with 'diminished responsibility'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

How, in the heat of the moment, is a householder to judge what the law may deem to be 'reasonable force' and nothing more, when faced by a knife-wielding burglar in the middle of the night? Landmark cases have since taken account of this, (but a long way from 'stand your ground' laws in some US States, which allow you to be 'judge, jury and executioner').

This is one of those debates which generates more heat than light, and rarely changes anyone views.

Much seems to depends on whether folk read the Daily Mail or Guardian, or follow Twitterti 'influencers' on Twitter ('X'), which is a snake pit where otherwise sane intelligent and articulate people are pathologically incapable of disagreeing with anyone without at the same time, being disagreeable. Two notable people who come to mind are Carol Vorderman and Gary Lineker.

Lots of people seem to 'know their rights' (of freedom of expression for example), but overlook that along with rights go responsibilities and limitations. EG:

Article 10 - Human Rights Act:

Freedom of expression​

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

It's why forums such as this have rules and moderators. 'Moderate' means 'within reasonable limits - not extreme' and in my view, the moderators on here cut a lot of slack to those inclined to vent their spleen and push it to the limit.

Quite enough I think. Apologies for being such a windbag.

David.

 

[Jake]

That's the point. The law should be simple and not have loopholes.

It's rather like "interpreting" the law - it should be written that it can't be interpreted. Something is either legal or it isn't.

As the 'man' said; "The Law is an ***".

As you appear to think you are agreeing with Phil, you clearly do not understand the meaning of that phrase. It means that an obstinate (***/mule like) application of the law in accordance with its strict text can result in unfair and rather stupid outcomes when applied to particular circumstances. That is the opposite of Phil's complaint, which is that the law should have simplistic, strict and inflexible meanings which are intentionally stupid ***-like.

 

[John Brown]

I would agree that here have been lots of 'perverse verdicts' in recent times, particularly with climate change protestors and the like being found not guilty of criminal damage, where their claimed 'valid defence' was (in my view), ludicrous and gives the green light for more of the same.

But for clarification as to proof, criminal cases do not have to be proved beyond ALL reasonable doubt, because if that were so, those deciding on guilt or innocence, would have had to witness the crime. The standard for criminal cases is 'beyond reasonable doubt'. That's a high standard of proof and any reasonable doubt must go in the defendant's favour. (In civil cases, the standard of proof is much lower 'On the balance of probability'. On that standard, people who would be found guilty are found not guilty to the criminal standard, just as there have been notable miscarriages of justice where evidence which would have cast doubt in favour of the defendant, has been withheld by prosecutors. (Think 'Post Office')

There are three elements as to what constitutes a 'crime':

1) Did the accused commit the act? (Known in law as 'Actus Reus'. An action or conduct which is a constituent element of a crime, as opposed to the mental state of the accused. "failure to prevent death may be the actus reus of the offence of manslaughter".

2) 'Mens rea'. Was the act committed with a criminal state of mind? Properly translated the term means “criminal intention”, or an intention to do the act which is penal by statute or the common law. It embraces any mental element that may be an ingredient of a criminal offence, eg recklessness, knowledge.

3) The absence of a valid defence.

There are some offences where there's no need to prove the second element (A criminal act done intentionally). Such offences are known as .'Absolute Offences'. Namely, if you commit the act you are guilty with no defence. Examples are speeding offences ('It wasn't a deliberant intention to flout the law - my speed just drifted up in a moment of inattentiveness (from 30 to 45MPH?). No car insurance: 'I'd moved house, had told my car insurance company, but they failed to notify me that my car insurance renewal was due'.

There are other cases in which there can be a valid defence. Self defence for example, if facing an attack. Many may recall the case of Tony Martin, the farmer convicted of murder for killing a burglar and causing grievous bodily harm to another. There was much public sympathy for the farmer and none for the criminals, but do bear in mind that it was a jury that convicted him.

English law at the time permitted a person to kill another in self-defence only if the person defending themselves using no more than "reasonable force"; it is the responsibility of the jury to determine whether or not an unreasonable amount of force was used. The jury at the trial were told that they had the option of returning a verdict of manslaughter rather than murder, if they thought that Martin "did not intend to kill or cause serious bodily harm". However, the jurors found Martin guilty of murder by a 10 to 2 majority. It was later reduce to manslaughter with 'diminished responsibility'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_(farmer)

How, in the heat of the moment, is a householder to judge what the law may deem to be 'reasonable force' and nothing more, when faced by a knife-wielding burglar in the middle of the night? Landmark cases have since taken account of this, (but a long way from 'stand your ground' laws in some US States, which allow you to be 'judge, jury and executioner').

This is one of those debates which generates more heat than light, and rarely changes anyone views.

Much seems to depends on whether folk read the Daily Mail or Guardian, or follow Twitterti 'influencers' on Twitter ('X'), which is a snake pit where otherwise sane intelligent and articulate people are pathologically incapable of disagreeing with anyone without at the same time, being disagreeable. Two notable people who come to mind are Carol Vorderman and Gary Lineker.

Lots of people seem to 'know their rights' (of freedom of expression for example), but overlook that along with rights go responsibilities and limitations. EG:

Article 10 - Human Rights Act:

Freedom of expression​

1 Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.

2 The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

It's why forums such as this have rules and moderators. 'Moderate' means 'within reasonable limits - not extreme' and in my view, the moderators on here cut a lot of slack to those inclined to vent their spleen and push it to the limit.

Quite enough I think. Apologies for being such a windbag.

David.

I agree with much of this, but I do wonder what climate protesters are supposed to do. Fossil fuel exploiters have apparently known about the problem for decades, and carried on regardless, yet they're not charged with criminal damage. Change via the ballot box is so far fetched that it's not even laughable. Like tobacco companies, who also knew the risks, but exploited the "doubt" factor for decades, hiring the same PR men as the fossil fuel giants are now employing. Tell me, if you can, has a single person ever been jailed for willfully promoting tobacco products, while being fully aware of the consequences? For that matter, have any of the opioid pushers in the USA been jailed? The scales are not just tipped in favour of the rich and powerful, they've been welded into position, and there seems to be bugger all anyone can do about it.

P.S. I had to look up Carol Vorderman's twitter transgressions, as I don't generally take much notice of twitter. I did find this:
"Ms Vorderman had been accused of 'flagrantly breaching' the BBC's impartiality rules with her anti-Tory outbursts, which have included calling ministers 'a lying bunch of greedy, corrupt, destructive, hateful, divisive, gaslighting crooks'."
I have to say that I think it's a fair and accurate appraisal of the situation, although I can understand the BBC wanting to distance themselves from such a statement.

 

[Spectric]

I think this thread has taken all the different directions it needs to and has run its course so before it goes well into unwanted territory lets put a lid on it.