Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Libertarian Discussion Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: jlallen who wrote (2996)	6/13/1999 12:30:00 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 13056

Nope, I believe your speculation sees the outcome quite backwards- or at least misses the positive point. By definition, applying the spirit of the law should bring more true justice. If this means outsiders who don't really know the facts of a case as a jury would, can write simple-minded comparisons between case outcomes and scream injustice...so be it. Better justice would remain. Nothing about judging true(hopefully) facts on their own merits adds to any casino effect..quite the opposite. "Casino" implies a roll of the dice without regard to the evidence. Dan B

To: jlallen who wrote (2996)	6/13/1999 5:06:00 PM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 13056

Yes, we can agree to disagree. However, it is interesting that I find you now simply reiterating the notion "Applying the spirit as opposed to the letter makes the system more of a casino than it already is, IMO"...while we have agreed(though you got me wrong for a moment) that the evidence in a particular case is of prime importance. Our agreement makes a good premise. Now that we've agreed on a premise there should be a logical argument bringing us to conclusions. Why do you think that the letter of the law should be applied without due consideration of justness, i.e. the spirit of the law, as evidence would warrant? Surely we are both seeking justice. How would this lead to a casino effect? Dan B