LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Nozz; Once again, you choose not to listen, whether it be to the substance or to my reference to my occupation. I don't really mind if you dont believe me. But do you have any reason to doubt me? Ultimately we are in broad agreement as to the rightness or wrongness of this law, so why would I bother making fake claims in order to argue what is a relatively fine point of statutory interpretation. Of course, you could have very easily checked if I had stated it before (where it was not especially important to a debate), but you didnt, despite your claim to want to listen to what 'real law men' say.... So, do you really or do you just throw it out there to put a hold on debate?
Most people who use these sites (other than trolls) do so to debate ideas, to gain information, to learn new things, to see new angles. When I hear from posters with a specialist skill, unless I have a reason to believe they are lying, I take them at face value and take a particular interest. I have learnt a lot from economists, and philosophers, and social workers, and nurses and those from plenty of other occupations on these sites. You claim you want to hear from someone with a particular background, and then dispute my claims to have that background.... And for what reason, so you dont have to shift your position in debate? So what's that about, why are you hear Nozz? - do you really want to engage and learn, or just to spew your own opinions forth and ignore those of others?
Anyway, on the substance, you are still not getting it. You only think the intent in murder and theft is clear-cut because you dont know much about them.Originally Posted by nozzferrahhtoo
So, in murder, which is a common law offence, the intent requirements developed over time. So there were times that it was in a state of flux, hardly clear cut. Even now, you are presumed to know and intend the 'natural and probable consequences of your actions' - do you know what that means? Please show me how that is 'wholly obvious'? Because that is what you claim, right?
Lets move to theft, you say the intent required is clearcut; tell you what then, tell me precisely what that intent is? And I want in clear-cut terms leaving little room for ambiguity, because you claim that the intent required for theft is 'wholly obvious', right? So lets see it.
Why do you think it is purely subjective? Does it say that in the law or are you making it up? Do you know how the judiciary interprets laws like these? Do you want to actually know how or are you happy just to speculate in an uneducated manner and ignore those who have some experience of how these things work?
If you do want to know, you might have read my post a few posts up where I explained how the law will usually interpret these matters. Very rarely will a purely subjective test apply. The usual manner of interpreting a law like that (and there are 000's and 000's of laws like that!) would be to use a mixed subjective-objective test.
But in any case, I fear we are getting bogged down in relatively minor issues. The simple fact is that this is a bad law. Because of what it criminalises, but not especially because of the way it is drafted or the subjective issue or the difficulty with intent. Many many laws include similar provisions on intent, similar (apparently) subjective provisions. And you know what, they all work; just like this law, to the uninitiated, they may look as if they may give rise to injustice, but there are judicial tools, hundreds of years in the develpment, that are used to interpret them. You might want to learn about them, Nozz, or maybe even ask a lawyer, maybe, the next time you are in the lucky position of talking with one....
Reply With Quote
]
