Mr Prime Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 A judge or other legal practitioner on the take is corruption. A law you disagree with is not corrupt because the mighty Alien disagrees with it. Is there some definition of corupption I am unaware of? You could argue it's morally corrupt but that is only in your opinion according to your morals, not the law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 So a 4 year old is to be held responsible for the fact that they knocked into an old lady and she fell over and broke her hip? She then died later on due to complications with the operation???? Sorry but why has nothing been said about the hospital she was in? or the care she recieved there?? at 80+ there is a good chance she would not even survive the op! My nan needs an op and she has been told they cant do it because she would die on the table! Nice way to treat the children that will be looking after us in our old age! If what had happened had been on purpose then fair enought, the child should be punished, but for an accident there is no reason at all this child should be subjected to all this crap. The son is out for one thing only and thats money! he is a solicitor after all! The judge will have spent many hours looking at every single detail and considering both sides at length. Therefore if his reasoning isn't clear then it's because all the facts are not clear. I know enough about judges to know he won't have made a snap decision because the sun was shining that day. If the parents had any honour they wouldn't be challenging it, I believe the son wants to sue them too but they have the brass neck to challenge it. I personally don't understand how a child can pay or would the parents be forced to pay? The son could give all the money to the hospital for all we know but people assume he is some greedy Yank lining his pockets. Facts not impressions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 So a 4 year old is to be held responsible for the fact that they knocked into an old lady and she fell over and broke her hip? Legally, the plaintiff is allowed to argue the case. There's no ruling that says he will win it. That will be up to a jury considering the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 A judge or other legal practitioner on the take is corruption. A law you disagree with is not corrupt because the mighty Alien disagrees with it. By the same token, you can't argue that it is NOT corrupt merely because you do agree with it - or because anybody agrees with it. And you still have not answered the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 By the same token, you can't argue that it is NOT corrupt merely because you do agree with it - or because anybody agrees with it. And you still have not answered the question. How have I not answered the question? This is a judgment taken from the established system. The judge has not just invented some new procedure/law. If he had it would not be possible to proceed would it? To me corruption is not about agreement or otherwise but whether an act is in line with the law as it stands. If we all decide stuff we disagree with is corrupt then we have no society or civilisation. Nor have I said I agree with it. I am humble and intelligent enough to reserve judgement, a bit like a judge. I believe that the kid should be punished somehow and if the parents won't then the state must. I am also cool headed and tabloid free enough in my thinking not to get outraged over a few sentences without knowing everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 A judge or other legal practitioner on the take is corruption. A law you disagree with is not corrupt because the mighty Alien disagrees with it. Is there some definition of corupption I am unaware of? You could argue it's morally corrupt but that is only in your opinion according to your morals, not the law. And your argument that morals have no place in judicial law? The whole concept of law is based on morality..the whole concept of breaking the law is a lack of recognition of morality...are you saying a 4yr old should recognise and understand the concept of morality..seems a bit harsh considering as an adult you're having issues with it let alone a 4yr old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 And your argument that morals have no place in judicial law? The whole concept of law is based on morality..the whole concept of breaking the law is a lack of recognition of morality...are you saying a 4yr old should recognise and understand the concept of morality..seems a bit harsh considering as an adult you're having issues with it let alone a 4yr old. What the child did was wrong and the child should be punished in some way. This will not entail pain so no problem. The cycling should never have been allowed to happen anyway but that's useless parents for you. Yes the parents should pay rather than the child but I don't understand the shock horror at the kid being sued. It is more symbolic than anything else unless she has thousands of dollars in her piggy bank. We are talking about a legal system practised by a very healthy democracy not some junta where puppet judges say any old rubbish to please El Presidente. Again I believe that if we on this thread sat down with the judge he would explain it to us and make the bigger picture clear. I see only tabloid kneejerkism on this thread rather than open mindedness. The American poster filled in most of the gaps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 How have I not answered the question? This is a judgment taken from the established system. The judge has not just invented some new procedure/law. Which brings us back to the question you still have not answered. Do you believe that anything which is legal cannot be corrupt? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 Which brings us back to the question you still have not answered. Do you believe that anything which is legal cannot be corrupt? That is a very good question and my instant reaction is to say well in Iran what is legal is definitely corrupt but not in the USA. The next question is why? The only answer is my views of the respective countries. I believe that the US legal system may be vengeful and reactionary compared to the UK but it is essentially the legal system of a democratic country with a lot of checks and balances and room for doubt hence OJ Simpson getting off. So because I don't claim to know everything I will hereby state that I may be wrong. I believe however that unless the judge is on the take or there are funny handshakes going on this is not corrupt. If it were deemed to be morally corrupt then an opposing lawyer would get it trashed on appeal and maybe they will. My main view is there are a lot of people who seem to react as if reading edited highlights in a tabloid and as the American poster pointed out it's not quite like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llb1984 Posted November 2, 2010 Share Posted November 2, 2010 What the child did was wrong and the child should be punished in some way. This will not entail pain so no problem. The cycling should never have been allowed to happen anyway but that's useless parents for you. Yes the parents should pay rather than the child but I don't understand the shock horror at the kid being sued. It is more symbolic than anything else unless she has thousands of dollars in her piggy bank. We are talking about a legal system practised by a very healthy democracy not some junta where puppet judges say any old rubbish to please El Presidente. Again I believe that if we on this thread sat down with the judge he would explain it to us and make the bigger picture clear. I see only tabloid kneejerkism on this thread rather than open mindedness. The American poster filled in most of the gaps. why should the cycling never have happened in the first place? are you telling me you expect a 4yr old to be on the road? If you yourself have children would you do that???? My god the LAW is nothing to some adults and not even a thought in a 4 yr olds head as they have no way of understanding. When it comes to right and wrong a 4 yr old can only understand so much! the child was playing on the street on its bike. the lady got knocked down, and later died FROM COMPLICATIONS WITH HER OPERATION!!! the lady was not murdered by the 4 year old. has even one person even thought about what this is going to do to the CHILD??? selfish money grabbing man sues child's parents for an ACCIDENT! thats what the headline on this story should be! ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.