Stevens Miller wrote:...before I found out that most of my papers were being graded by graduate students at the university down the street.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:...before I found out that most of my papers were being graded by graduate students at the university down the street.
Surely no better grading ground? Personally, I'd be happy to have my code graded by a graduate.
Or are we talking about the law here?
At the risk of creating a new thread, US law seems very regimented to me - constitution is all, and everything is argued against it, for good or ill
which, I suspect is why a TV series like Law & Order stands on its own. We over here need a Rumpole to make it interesting, because people in the dock are actually given leave to answer more than just the question posed to them.
However, we (or actually, I) seem to have drifted from the original brief...
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:My gripe was that it wasn't graded by the person who taught the course. Silly me...
My own humble opinion is that this is because the rest of our law that is dedicated to preserving harmony among a diverse people who don't agree on everything is pretty well worked out...
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:My own humble opinion is that this is because the rest of our law that is dedicated to preserving harmony among a diverse people who don't agree on everything is pretty well worked out...
Yes, but do you not think that this simply breeds the recursive rule of law? I don't know about the US, but one of the basic tenets here is that ignorance of the law is not a defence. And it's becoming more and more difficult to enforce because you have more and more statutes; and many of those statutes are recursive (ie, they're based, or defaulted, on previous laws that they supercede).
When does it end? And when is the public going to start wondering if legislators (and politicians who, like corporate upper management, seem to spawn, almost exclusively, from your profession)
I hate to say, but US law, with its rather literal translation of jurisprudence (not to mention, method of selection of judges) seems poorly equipped to answer these sorts of questions.
I like the idea of a world where someone defending him or herself in court does NOT necessarily have a fool for a client.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:I'm speaking of the basic notion of law in the service of an ordered liberty...Now, where that's left us is with three groups of people considering about a half-dozen very black-and-white basic issues: the death penalty; abortion; gun rights; gay rights; the environment; defense spending; social-service spending. (That's seven, but the last two are actually flip sides of the same coin, as it seems to be working out.)
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Stevens Miller wrote:Heh. You're up against a lot more than American jurisprudence when you take that maxim on.
Our system doesn't guarantee representation so that lawyers can squeeze fees out of defendants who can't handle the law; it exists so defendants can squeeze acquittals out of juries that can't handle innocence.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Stevens Miller wrote:The question for anyone considering a law really is, I believe, what does it mean to ordered liberty? Does it enslave us, or does it set us free? The beauty inherent in that approach, if there is any, is that one need not be a lawyer, nor even a propeller-headed computer geek, to use it.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:I'm speaking of the basic notion of law in the service of an ordered liberty...Now, where that's left us is with three groups of people considering about a half-dozen very black-and-white basic issues: the death penalty; abortion; gun rights; gay rights; the environment; defense spending; social-service spending. (That's seven, but the last two are actually flip sides of the same coin, as it seems to be working out.)
Sorry about this, but I'm quite enjoying it:
The first 4 things that you listed I can certainly agree with, at least in the US. Indeed, in almost any other country except the US, number 3 wouldn't even be a matter for judicial consideration.
But defense spending? Or the social contract? What business does the law have with these - other than, possibly, as an arbitrator?
The law is not about making policy; it's about enforcing it when it needs to be; and sometimes - in (hopefully) rare cases, and with a good judiciary - about pointing out when it's wrong. How long were Jim Crow laws in force?
Unless I'm mistaken, the US has not yet ratified the equal rights amendment.
That's the way democracies work - but it's not the business of the law or legislators; for good or ill, it's the business of parliament (or Congress).
We cut off a King's head for that right...and the French would back us up on that one.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:Heh. You're up against a lot more than American jurisprudence when you take that maxim on.
Believe me, it wasn't American in particular; but jurisprudence in general.
Our system doesn't guarantee representation so that lawyers can squeeze fees out of defendants who can't handle the law; it exists so defendants can squeeze acquittals out of juries that can't handle innocence.
Hmmm. Sounds like a nice aphorism from your (I mean lawyer) side of the fence;
We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France,
we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender
especially as you are the guys receiving whatever money there is being squeezed.
I don't know what the rules are like in the US, but in Britain you can't even bloody talk to your lawyer in court. So...what? You come in with a pre-ordained script and you sink or swim on that? Sod a lawyer, give me Anthony Hopkins.
Sorry, but the whole darn process is far too entrenched for me: Too good at making money for the people involved; too much of a "closed shop"; too couched in Latin; too much about pageantry and procedure; and presided over by someone who is a petit Dieu and almost impossible to remove from office, no matter how incompetent or senile they get.
You'll forgive me. It's simplistic; but I'll bet I'm not the only person who feels that way about our system of "justice".
And just as a piece of evidence to back my claim: I bought an apartment in Scotland back in 2000 and was sent the title document (at least I think it was; I wouldn't stake my life on it) - 11 tightly-spaced A4 pages of legalese; 4 (yes, four) sentences.
C'mon, tell me you aren't (or weren't) in it for the dosh.
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:The question for anyone considering a law really is, I believe, what does it mean to ordered liberty? Does it enslave us, or does it set us free? The beauty inherent in that approach, if there is any, is that one need not be a lawyer, nor even a propeller-headed computer geek, to use it.
I have to admit, I like that sentiment.
And I'm done ranting. Hope you didn't take it personally; you're the only lawyer, propeller-headed or otherwise, I know.
Winston
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
Stevens Miller wrote:BTW, the actor was Sean Connery. You gotta love anything said by Sean Connery.
"Leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow" - Dogbert
Articles by Winston can be found here
Winston Gutkowski wrote:
Stevens Miller wrote:BTW, the actor was Sean Connery. You gotta love anything said by Sean Connery.
Except I bet he said: Doesh it enshlave us, or doesh it shet us free?
"Il y a peu de choses qui me soient impossibles..."
With a little knowledge, a cast iron skillet is non-stick and lasts a lifetime. |