andygardener Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 So you are suggesting that international law would render the legal system of a rogue nation unlawful? All well and good but Jeffrey doesn't believe there is any such thing as International Law as he has previously stated so it does not apply to the hypothetical scenario I presented for his consideration. Furthermore, there are plenty of legally applied sanctions that are barbaric and yet not halted by the intervention of international law. Dare I suggest that you are applying your own morality (as you have already used the term right-thinking) to the hypothetical scenario I presented and that you are deeming it unacceptable and beyond what would be condoned by right-thinking international consensus? And by doing so, that you are actually proving my point that it is flawed to suggest that drug smugglers should be subject to whatever punishment any state deems fit and that any punishment is acceptable so long as it is called a law. No I'm not suggesting any of that. I'm saying a legal system has to lay out what is a crime and what is the punishment range for the crime and then apply that punishment range to people convicted of that crime. It could be the death sentence for speaking with your mouth full (bit harsh but I'm all for coming down hard of their kind) or a $10 fine for murder that you just mail in. It might be to others unduly harsh or unduly lenient but it's still a legal system. A person knows if I do X and get caught I will be punished by between Y and Z. Y might be seemingly disproportionate to Z in others eyes but the person knows what will happen. As soon as you knowingly punish innocents as a matter of policy it ceases to be a legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 As soon as you knowingly punish innocents as a matter of policy it ceases to be a legal system. Once again I have to ask - according to who? Who decides that under those circumstances it ceases to be a legal system? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 Once again I have to ask - according to who? Who decides that under those circumstances it ceases to be a legal system? According to everyone. A football match is not a legal system. A top hat is not a legal system. A disappointed owl is not a legal system. A legal system must detail offences and their punishments and apply them to those it believes to be guilty of those offences. That's what a legal system is. There is a massive range within that for what is an offence and what is the punishment, but there is no scope to step outside those core principles and call it a legal system. FFS it's not a hard concept to grasp. But you will now want me to state which organisation has decreed this rather than just using a bit of common sense and thinking about for two seconds flat which is why conversations with you go round and round in circles so if you can't understand this very basic concept or more likely just what to keep hammering away with "says who" then says me. By all means hold the contrary view that any authority that does not follow the basic rules outlined above can say it has a legal system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 According to everyone. A football match is not a legal system. A top hat is not a legal system. A disappointed owl is not a legal system. A legal system must detail offences and their punishments and apply them to those it believes to be guilty of those offences. That's what a legal system is. There is a massive range within that for what is an offence and what is the punishment, but there is no scope to step outside those core principles and call it a legal system. FFS it's not a hard concept to grasp. But you will now want me to state which organisation has decreed this rather than just using a bit of common sense and thinking about for two seconds flat which is why conversations with you go round and round in circles so if you can't understand this very basic concept or more likely just what to keep hammering away with "says who" then says me. By all means hold the contrary view that any authority that does not follow the basic rules outlined above can say it has a legal system. No, once again you are missing the point. It wouldn't be a just legal system. It probably wouldn't be a sustainable legal system as it would garner no respect and would fail to support the Rule of Law. It wouldn't be a legal system that international bodies would recognise... It would be a corrupt legal system, but it would still be a legal system by virtue of the simple fact that it would be a state sanctioned legal framework. For example, southern states in the US has legal systems that punished the innocent before the civil rights movement. Apartheid South Africa had legal sysyems that punished the innocent. Nazi Germany had legal systems that punished the innocent. Several Islamic states currently have legal systems that punish the innocent. You even accept that North Korea is a further example. They were/are all legal systems, deeply flawed yes, but state sanctioned frameworks of law nonetheless. My hypothetical scenario was simply the same as those but just taken to a deliberately extreme level. However, I think we should agree to differ and leave it there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 She deserve's everything she is going to get.Drugs are the scourge of the world even though some of our society seem to think it is quite acceptable.You are doing something wrong with your life if you have to resort to taking drugs to enjoy life.I will not shed any tears. I'm sure I've had a pint with you in town before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost rider Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I'm sure I've had a pint with you in town before. I went tee total ten years ago and have no time for drug takers i am afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I went tee total ten years ago and have no time for drug takers i am afraid. I think there are 2 ghost riders on here now. My apols for seemingly questioning your abstinence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostrider Posted April 17, 2013 Share Posted April 17, 2013 I think there are 2 ghost riders on here now. My apols for seemingly questioning your abstinence Yes, there ARE 2...and just what are you infering may I ask ? Apart from the fact I was having a pint Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 No, once again you are missing the point. It wouldn't be a just legal system. It probably wouldn't be a sustainable legal system as it would garner no respect and would fail to support the Rule of Law. It wouldn't be a legal system that international bodies would recognise... It would be a corrupt legal system, but it would still be a legal system by virtue of the simple fact that it would be a state sanctioned legal framework. For example, southern states in the US has legal systems that punished the innocent before the civil rights movement. Apartheid South Africa had legal sysyems that punished the innocent. Nazi Germany had legal systems that punished the innocent. Several Islamic states currently have legal systems that punish the innocent. You even accept that North Korea is a further example. They were/are all legal systems, deeply flawed yes, but state sanctioned frameworks of law nonetheless. My hypothetical scenario was simply the same as those but just taken to a deliberately extreme level. However, I think we should agree to differ and leave it there. I'm not sure how further you can go to simplify a point...it's so obvious the point you're putting over that anyone attempting to argue against it in my eyes are questionable. As has already been pointed out..this isn't about the law of different nations..it's about the dislike or hatred for a certain type...It's a tool to hide behind and claim it as debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*_ash_* Posted April 18, 2013 Share Posted April 18, 2013 Yes, there ARE 2...and just what are you infering may I ask ? Apart from the fact I was having a pint At the time, I wasn't inferring anything, I was implying that you were a hypocrite. I got the wrong ghost rider though - not knowing that there were two You then inferred that you are a hypocrite - well would have been had I not picked the wrong ghost rider Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.