|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 02:53 PM EDT |
If you replace muscles and swords with dollars, it seems to be a fair analogy to
what is going on in our courts systems now.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:00 PM EDT |
One could argue that is the system we have now, only instead of fighting ability
with physical aptitude, it is now fighting ability with word choice, a person’s
ability to carefully select words and distort the truth. The one who distorts
it the most convincingly, or sneaks in the most innocuous of remarks that
apparently get listed as fact, prevails.
Now, I'm not saying I am being anything more than a devil's advocate here, but
it is easy to get jaded.
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: hairbear on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 03:59 PM EDT |
I think OP forgot his <irony> tags.
hairbear
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 07:13 PM EDT |
in all modern discussions of the judicial combats and ordeals, is the Divine
Intervention.
It was the foundational premise that God would support the just, and thus the
outcome of the Trial was Divinely Ordained.
Who could argue with that?
In the 1200s(1242?) the Church prohibited its priests from officiating at
Ordeals or Judicial Combats; after a lot of grumbling we (the Anglo-Saxons) got
the Jury.
I personally would be happy to see more active Divine Intervention in today's
judicial proceedings; umm... say more failure of lawyers to pass the Lightning
Test?
But God seems to want us to stand on our own feet, at least judicially.
We really lose track of how profoundly different we are now, than we were then.
Even when the worst parts of us don't change.
ZOT!
JG
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 08:09 PM EDT |
If justice depends on fighting
ability, words or pin, the most
evil person on the planet would buff up or
take writing and editing lessons in law so that they may win. Lies do not make
right, you know, nor should
it, particularly because nice people are
usually not such mean or dirty fighters.
See it works both ways.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Trial by combat - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, May 14 2012 @ 09:17 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 05:07 AM EDT |
"because nice people are usually not such mean or dirty fighters."
I know a very large number of *very* nice people, who are all very good
fighters.
In fact, in my experience, the best fighters are generally the most chivalrous
people. They might have a mean sense of humour though.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, May 15 2012 @ 10:09 AM EDT |
There is an element present in trial by combat that isn't present in the current
legal system - risk to those who enter the court. Frank Herbert provided an
interesting alternative in The Dosadi Experiment the form of the Gowachin bar
where all who enter the court(arena) do so at the peril of their lives. It is
an extreme, but like most thought experiments in science fiction it makes a
clear social point.
We saw in the the SCO case that lawyers may make the most absurd assertions to
the court and twist the legal system in the most extreme ways without any
credible risk to themselves. Entering the court is a win-win situation for the
lawyers, with no substantive element of risk. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
