i am not good looking enough for the television judiciary - plus you have to be able to explain 250 years of case law and theory in 5 seconds...not easy to do if you have a brain.

on the above - what I was saying is just one way that the so called "right to privacy" has been described - right to control your own body, autonomy from government interference, etc... just a general term for all the fundamental rights as a group.

it gives me a headache

When the law becomes ambiguous, you end up with every transgressor trotting out some justification for why the law should not apply to them. If your excuse is good enough, you can ignore the law.

Your "killing" example should be straightforward...

"Did you kill the other person?"

"Yes"

"Was it an act of war?"

"No"

"Was your life threatened?"

"No"

"Was the life of another person threatened?"

"No"

"Guilty"

The law should prescribe when it's allowable to kill another. Those circumstances had damned well better be well-defined so as to leave no doubt or ambiguity.

if you become president and institute the Hammurabi code I am moving to canada.

Ha! Annexing Canada is the first thing I'd do in office.

The only way laws will ever be completely "black or white" would be if lawmakers were to consider each and every possible factual circumstance imaginable relevant to each law and then decide which side of the law each circumstance came down upon.

Real life itself is far too "grey."

Billz, you're against capital punishment, or does that fall under the country defending itself?

Even with Billz's scenario, "self-defense" would still need to be defined and (dis)proven with each case. The subjectivity still exists just not within the laws themselves.

Alls I'm sayin' is that the law should be unambiguous. The law should clearly define what actions are legal and what actions are not. A person should not have to wonder if their actions are against the law.

I don't think capital punishment holds--I'm talking about the general citizenry. Were a person to capitally punish someone (i.e. kill them in response for a transgression, that person would, IMO, be guilty of murder).

Yes, the circumstances will have to be proven in court. We will still need juries and judges. The burden falls upon the actor to state their case why their actions are allowed under a clear law.

I see no value or attractiveness in vaguery in the law. If you make your living interpreting the law, bending it to you or your client's will, then yes, vaguery is good. However, you must recognize that to serve this interest, you have weakened the law.

Rodney,

Let's say that you are right about the right to control your own body. But then doesn't the argument boil down to when does life begin or am I missing something?

back to the selection:

i would be against this guy for a handful of reasons, but the biggest:

he has only been a judge for 2.4 years. i dont think he has the track record to be given a lifetime apointment to the hightest court in the united states.

i say it comes to down when does the rights of a bundle of cells mature enough to overcome the right of someone to control their own body.

it wouldn't be anything new, scottycash: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/14/polit ... cotus.html

this isn't about jesus, is it?

fair enough.

If we take this statement as the determining factor, and if you also have the previously mentioned fundamental right to control your children, then does that mean we could abort up until the age of 12 or 14?

Please let it be so! I'm gonna go grab my hatchet!

Yes, but you can't do it by buckling them into the car and rolling it off the pier.

sorry man - everyone (maybe not) agrees kids are people so that's murder...in most cases.

Not bait, but a joke, sir.

i know - i was kidding too. i roll kids into the Willamette quite regularly.

Haha. Just making sure.

Hold up a sec. Maybe you didn't think this all the way through, but we have a notion of "innocent until proven guilty" in criminal court. The burden is on the state to prove one's actions were in violation of the law. If one had to affirmatively prove his actions were allowed under a law, that would be pretty scary.



I'm not advocating vaguery in the law. I'm saying it would be nearly impossible to have air tight laws that would not need to be interpeted in some way by judges.

There is a balance though. Perhaps what you're really getting at is Congressional vaguery or complete silence on certain issues so they can protect themselves from voter backlash. They pass the buck to the courts and let them figure it out.

On the whole I think most laws, especially laws like the Model Penal Codes that have been adopted, are pretty good at being specific. But in reality, no matter how specific a law you have, there is a need for some degree of interpretation.

I think complete specificity is nearly impossible, but purposeful silence or vaguery by legislators is definitley not a good thing.

Whoooah, my supposition in my example is that it has been established that the action in question was uncontestedly committed. e.g. "Yes I killed said person, but said killing was legal because..." The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, but the defendant is obligated to explain why their actions are allowed under the law.

In a case where defendant denies commiting the act, the burden lies wholly upon the prosecution to prove otherwise.

I think we're on the same page, and I may have mis-interprated RParis' original post...I think specificity should be the goal. Is perfect specificity ever attainable? Probably not, but it should be the goal nonetheless.