But they are thick. So they will be easily overcome.



Ignoring that particular thought you have had, what is your view?

Probably.

Quote kirkstaller="kirkstaller"Does every thread have to turn into this? For the record, you are quoting Mosaic law.'" Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: www.howtobethesameaswindupmerchantswhou ... aforum.com

Quote kirkstaller="kirkstaller"Does every thread have to turn into this? For the record, you are quoting Mosaic law.'" Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: www.howtobethesameaswindupmerchantswhou ... aforum.com

Was that intentional???

and



pretendingtobesomethingimnot.com



and



ilovewindingpeopleup.com



and



igoonsitestogetariseANDTHEYBITE.com

Those are your reasons, yes – and fair enough.



But they're subjective. And indeed, would rely on subjectivity.

Quote Rooster Booster="Rooster Booster"Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: www.howtobethesameaswindupmercha ... aforum.com'" Do you understand the significance of your words? Luke 23:24

Quote Rooster Booster="Rooster Booster"Forgive me. I know not what I do. I actually found it on a website called: www.howtobethesameaswindupmercha ... aforum.com'" Do you understand the significance of your words? Luke 23:24

Virtually everything we do in life requires subjectivity, even the law which is subject to individual judge's interpretation of statute. This would be no different - seldom are things so black and white.

So in fact, having disagreed all along, you have now been persuaded that the standard of proof of "beyond reasonable doubt" is the best we can do.



As for using different terminology in court, one problem has been (it turns out) you use of imprecise language. You probably don't even know it, but your starting proposition (100% sure) it turns out does not mean what it implies, and does not equate to certainty. Therefore is very confusing if used as any yardstick. Being "sure" is not exactly the same as being "certain". So, for example, you are 100% sure you are that person; but you aren't (and cannot be) certain. So to use the term "100% sure" in the way you argued is misleading. If you had been charged with not being that person, you are sure you're not, but cannot be certain. Leave the "100%" out and it works.

I think that that is the crux of it my legalistic friend.



I had noticed his use of the term 'beyond reasonable doubt' which sort of holed him below the water-line , but I thought that I would leave it to my learned colleague to point it out.

Do you do cheap conveyancing by any chance?

Nah.





Nah. If the statute is clear, and most are, the judge is not even allowed to do any interpretation. See "golden rule".

So every decision you make is so straight forward you do not require you to use your brain, you are effect an automon - but for most of us we need to consider other issues i.e. decision are 'subject' to outside considerations. I would suggest you are wrong in your 'nah' comment.



How do you explain Judicial law changes? and how do you explain the diversity of sentencing for very similar offences if the decision does not include some degree of subjectivity from the judge? If it were not the case you would only need the judge to ensure legal protocol and on conviction the sentence would already be known.