Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by rosenshyne, Nov 5, 2009.
So, who's got a country with a less fucked up legal system that I can move to?
How about suing the witness for perjury? And then the witness could make regress suit against the prosecutors for coercion.
Not too up to date on the American legal system, but that would be my workaround strategy.
There's always developing Africa.
Well they should they be disbarred then they are no longer lawyers and I'm not sure if immunity would still apply. But there is a huge difference between unknowingly entering false evidence because a witness committed perjury and knowingly coaching a witness as to how to commit perjury. Also the immunity is for during the trial, if you aren't in court then you aren't at trial. What those lawyers did in their offices or wherever shouldn't be covered by immunity either.
What the FUCK!?
"error" - 7. Law: a mistake in a matter of fact or law in a case tried in a court of record.
"mistake" - 1. an error in action, calculation, opinion, or judgment caused by poor reasoning, carelessness, insufficient knowledge, etc.
"etc" - deliberate intent, when convienent.
If fate would so contrive it that these lawyers could be framed for pedophelia, rape, and murder, I would be content.
What if they rape a child during trial? Would they be immune then?
Wait a few years. I'm sure somebody will attempt it.
Ugh...it's amazing that I've lived all my 23 years in this country and had no idea prosecutors couldn't be held accountable for shit they do during a trial. Better a prosecuting attourney is free of personal lawsuits than two innocent men go behind bars for 25 years? Bullshit to the nth degree.
That's just beyond fucked up.
The rule is meant to protect lawyers for defamation suits for things they say during trial. Say pointing to a red herring. It was not meant to protect them from suits like this. In any case suborning perjury is indeed grounds for disbarment. Hell, under American law it's even punishable by up to five years imprisonment.
It is impossible to understand anything about politics and law before one realises that everything revolves around money. Ever wondered why tax evasion is often seen as more serious than brutal rape in the eyes of the law? Laws like this one are not formulated due to lofty goals of justice, it was passed because the legal system, already bogged down in its own bureaucracy hell of outstanding inefficiency, couldn't bear the costs and handle the stress of having trials set in an endless loop (ie prosecutor X in trial A ends up in trial B for defamation, same thing happens to the guy prosecuting him and now we've got an expensive ball of red tape rolling).
So I can definitely see why one would want such a law, but gods be damned, narrow it the fuck down so that it only applies to a select set of circumstances, and doesn't work like a prosecutor's version of diplomatic immunity.
Let this be a lesson that laws need to be formulated with exactitude. Personally I blame the dumbfucks in legal systems everywhere and the English language, which should already hang its head in shame because of its poverty of reflexive pronouns and the problems this causes in legal texts.
Tax evasion is more serious than brutal rape in the eyes of the law? Really? Is that how it is in Sweden and the USA?
Guys, move to Canada, we literally punish you harsher for rape than tax evasion. Failing to pay your income tax doesn't even net you jail time, we just force you to pay interest and make it impossible for you to get a line of credit (no cars or houses for you!). I think there's some kind of clause for uber-rich people too, since our wealthy population still emigrates to tax havens.
Personally, from what little study I've done, I think English is probably better in terms of pronouns than, say, French, where everything is 'he' or 'she'.
Consider the following sentence: He's fucking his wife.
There's ambiguity there, especially if you put the stress on the word "his" like so: He's fucking his wife.
Scandinavian doesn't have that problem.
Here it'd be "It's fucking its spouse.". We can't even determine the gender. There is the word 'wife', which usually suffices to distinguish gender, except for gay marriages of course. Then it's anyones guess if you're talking about a he, she, it, or a purple people eater.
Indeed. I am a classification on my own. 'Aberrant' seems as good a description, although I'm unaware of the people eating part.
You do know that Swedish feminazis want to introduce the same bullshit into our language?
It's the same way in Turkish, "o" is used as both he/she/it.
I believe it's quite simple to understand which "o" stands for who, though. And thank God we don't have to bother with feminin/masculin objects like... the French =\
Strange, the same word in Ancient Egyptian is used for brother/sister/close relative/husband/wife. Imagine fucking that one up.
"Congratulations! It's an IT! You're a parent!"
It just doesn't have the same ring to it.
Separate names with a comma.