Thread: Sick of it all. Off to war.

Originally Posted by Savage1

Oh the irony of @Sidney giving his opinion about the meaning of 'opinion', which when compared to a definition from a dictionary is clearly incorrect.

Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to voice it, no matter how stupid or ill founded, this is at the core of a free society.

if you could read Savaloy you might have been able to follow that this is the definition of "legal opinion" and its not just mine. What is concerning of course is that your limited understanding of this should actually not be the case given your profession...

And of course no where did I actually say that you haven't the right to be stupid, say stupid things or form stupid thoughts from a lack of knowledge and understanding.

I am just concerned that you seem so determined to do exactly that....

Originally Posted by Sidney

if you could read Savaloy you might have been able to follow that this is the definition of "legal opinion" and its not just mine. What is concerning of course is that your limited understanding of this should actually not be the case given your profession...

And of course no where did I actually say that you haven't the right to be stupid, say stupid things or form stupid thoughts from a lack of knowledge and understanding.

I am just concerned that you seem so determined to do exactly that....

You lectured your opinion on the definition of opinion without revealing that you were speaking about the legal definition rather than he common English definition until the actual definition was posted, I'm unsure if you're trying to be smart or just arrogant.

I never mentioned that you denied the right to be stupid etc, it's stupid to imply that I did.

You should be offering your opinion on how to weigh others opinions, not argue about the definition of a word, I understand what you're trying to do and I somewhat agree with you but you could go about it in a better way, but that's just my opinion.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You lectured your opinion on the definition of opinion without revealing that you were speaking about the legal definition rather than he common English definition until the actual definition was posted, I'm unsure if you're trying to be smart or just arrogant.

I never mentioned that you denied the right to be stupid etc, it's stupid to imply that I did.

You should be offering your opinion on how to weigh others opinions, not argue about the definition of a word, I understand what you're trying to do and I somewhat agree with you but you could go about it in a better way, but that's just my opinion.

yep... i offered it as purely an argument without clarifying initially.... but then I did...

and the point is that you didn't recognise what it was... before or after that

and of course there is a better way... there is always a better way

Everyone has the right to an opinion and the right to voice it, no matter how stupid or ill founded, this is at the core of a free society.

that in response to my posts implies that I didn't think that... hence my response...

"weight" or credibility isn't the actual issue... the issue is the proliferation and noise from uniformed opinion expressed because of percieved right. Our world is full of information, the solution isn't more analysis of more crap, its less crap.

Originally Posted by Savage1

You lectured your opinion on the definition of opinion without revealing that you were speaking about the legal definition rather than he common English definition until the actual definition was posted, I'm unsure if you're trying to be smart or just arrogant.

I never mentioned that you denied the right to be stupid etc, it's stupid to imply that I did.

You should be offering your opinion on how to weigh others opinions, not argue about the definition of a word, I understand what you're trying to do and I somewhat agree with you but you could go about it in a better way, but that's just my opinion.

Geeze Savage you've screwed my brain!!

Originally Posted by Sidney

if you could read Savaloy you might have been able to follow that this is the definition of "legal opinion" and its not just mine. What is concerning of course is that your limited understanding of this should actually not be the case given your profession...

And of course no where did I actually say that you haven't the right to be stupid, say stupid things or form stupid thoughts from a lack of knowledge and understanding.

I am just concerned that you seem so determined to do exactly that....

Now the same could be said of your trade. Facts must be ignored because, even though they are correct, they are not admissible (due to a legal technicality as opposed to a just nature). As a result the legal opinion formed, by the legal professions own definition, is not based on full and truthful knowledge.

Originally Posted by gadgetman

Now the same could be said of your trade. Facts must be ignored because, even though they are correct, they are not admissible (due to a legal technicality as opposed to a just nature). As a result the legal opinion formed, by the legal professions own definition, is not based on full and truthful knowledge.

ahhhh....a challenge....

evidence is often not admissible, but the system is trying to be fair. The protagonists are charged to deliver to their best efforts for the parties they represent. That is often considered to be unfair to the other party. The courts are charged with enforcing the roles and deciding on the evidence allowed what the outcome should be...

some evidence while factual and truthful can create bias disproportionate to the real value of the information. For example a defendants previous criminal history. The court has to decide what is fair and equitable because proving guilt is the responsibilty of the prosecution and cannot be assumed with the introduction of material that creates prejudice and bias unrelated to the matter before the court.

the system is trying to be fair... I'm more impressed about that than I thought that I could be, but the components of the system often appear not to be fair in order for the system to achieve that.. and that is a fact. The reason that the general public think that the system is not is because that only hear about its failings and they only see the errant practitioners.... its actually not that bad at its purpose. Where the system falls down is in the limited amount of resource and thought about how we should best deal with those who transgress.

Where we continue to fall down is in the ideal of punative deterent, and failing to try and equip our criminals to be better citizens on their evitable return to general society.

Justice is not an outcome its a process.... outcomes can never be equitable from the victims perspective. The desire to punish is not beneficial after the fact.

Every system has failings, but this one is probably not as flawed as most think. The primary issues of concern are sentencing options and access/cost for those at the lower ends of society.

Always room for improvement though...

Originally Posted by Sidney

ahhhh....a challenge....

evidence is often not admissible, but the system is trying to be fair. The protagonists are charged to deliver to their best efforts for the parties they represent. That is often considered to be unfair to the other party. The courts are charged with enforcing the roles and deciding on the evidence allowed what the outcome should be...

some evidence while factual and truthful can create bias disproportionate to the real value of the information. For example a defendants previous criminal history. The court has to decide what is fair and equitable because proving guilt is the responsibilty of the prosecution and cannot be assumed with the introduction of material that creates prejudice and bias unrelated to the matter before the court.

the system is trying to be fair... I'm more impressed about that than I thought that I could be, but the components of the system often appear not to be fair in order for the system to achieve that.. and that is a fact. The reason that the general public think that the system is not is because that only hear about its failings and they only see the errant practitioners.... its actually not that bad at its purpose. Where the system falls down is in the limited amount of resource and thought about how we should best beal with those who transgress.

Where we continue to fall down is in the ideal of punative deterent, and failing to try and equip our criminals to be better citizens on their evitable return to general society.

Justice is not an outcome its a process.... outcomes can never be equitable from the victims perspective. The desire to punish is not beneficial after the fact.

Every system has failings, but this one is probably not as flawed as most think. The primary issues of concern are sentencing options and access/cost for those at the lower ends of society. Always room for improvement though...

Indeed. It is like all other aspects of life, just costlier than even a partner. There is the definite perception that it has evolved into it's own self regenerating spiral of increasing complexity and cost, and moved into more of a legal system than a justice system.

I can remember a government vowing to sort the whole system out an simplify the laws. Of course they inevitably just introduced more complex and wordy laws that made the whole thing messier.