|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 27, 2004 16:11:55 GMT -5
Elfie, your compensation argument kind of pisses me off because I don't believe in civil courts in the first place. I think dueling is far preferable, but that's for another debate.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Oct 27, 2004 19:06:51 GMT -5
Dueling I'm not too fond of...it favors whoever's more talented at whatever the duel is, not who's right, and that's a problem.
And I think the way I suggest it is probably best. Go re-read it. It works.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 27, 2004 22:46:39 GMT -5
You've pretty much just described the Canadian system. We have a clause called the "dangerous offenders" clause which allows a judge to sentence somebody to jail indefinetly, and no, it is not abused. The thing is that you guys fry anyone who might be secluded like Bass recommends, so you never see it happen and thus assume it's not a possibility. Let me tell you right now that it is.
As for dueling, I'd probably lose the duel. That doesn't mean I was wrong. There is no link between being right and having the fastest draw.
|
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Oct 28, 2004 10:07:29 GMT -5
I like the seclusion clause, assuming the judge doesn't have some random change of heart adn decide the guy's fine and can be set free now. I would imagine there are checks and balances to ensure this doesn't happen, but still.
And I'm all for it as long as, as I said, the inmates are treated like the garbage they are, as opposed to being treated to a rec room, weight training, libraries, and all the other wonderful commodities that people pay thousands upon thousands of dollars for to have for themselves outside the prison.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 28, 2004 11:55:37 GMT -5
There is no link between being right and having the fastest draw. There's no link between being right and having the best lawyer either, but it sure wastes the taxpayer's money.  |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Oct 28, 2004 14:34:31 GMT -5
As the son of two lawyers, I can tell you that you are completely and utterly wrong, at least in Canada. Do you have a legal aid system in the United States?
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 29, 2004 9:36:59 GMT -5
A massively fucked-up one. The money still always wins. |
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Oct 30, 2004 2:44:05 GMT -5
-=Points at the OJ Simpson trial=-
-=Points at almost every other celebrity trial=-
-=Rests his case=-
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Oct 31, 2004 17:39:07 GMT -5
*is confuzzled  * I forbid you to rest your case until you specifically state whether you're agreeing with me or Elfie. |
|
|
|
Post by SuperBassX84 on Oct 31, 2004 23:33:40 GMT -5
Detailing to Elfie how bad the American system sucks, and thusly, agreeing with you.
|
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Nov 2, 2004 0:14:27 GMT -5
He did lose in civil court, though I guess that's not much for consolation.
Interestingly, it does help my point about taking criminals to civil court for reparations.
|
|
|
|
Post by piñata on Nov 2, 2004 12:39:18 GMT -5
We're already greedy/whiny enough without you encouraging people to go to civil court. |
|
|
|
Post by Elfie on Nov 2, 2004 23:43:14 GMT -5
There are often valid reasons to go to civil court. The problem is that you guys have tried to write so much down instead of letting it be determined by case law so people can win cases on technicalities even though common sense says they shouldn't. This doesn't happen in Canada.
|
|
