|
Milo and POTUS posted:apparently not the case in the uk No it quite literally is - the issue in the UK is libel laws put onus on the person making the claim to prove it to an evidentiary standard. In the usa its the other way around, its on the claimant to prove that the libel was both malicious and knowingly false. If you say "the prime minister was drunk and embarrassing to the nation" you would be expected to provide evidence of a medical standard proving a blood alcohol content that a suitably informed layman would consider drunk. This is obviously impossible in most cases. Same with repotting on celebrity drug usage, etc. "Honest opinion" is a defence but only if its not criminal libelor clearly phrased as an editor opinion or similar. Its also why we have a bunch of stock phrases which are layman's terms for the act but plausibly deniable. "Tired and emotional" or variants thereof are well known to be referencing that someome was a drunk pissant and acting like a moron because of it, for instance. This is a double edged sword. If someone makes a suitably outrageous claim, for instance that the former prime minister david cameron hosed a dead pigs head at university, thats the sort of thing our libel laws would be very easy to win substantial damages with... Unless of course the person the claim was about knew evidence existed that would make them lose their own libel case in court and then have to pay court costs, and hence would not sue... Proving the claims essentially true.
|
#
?
Aug 28, 2023 17:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
Hammerite posted:I don't really like this practice of doing "victim impact statements" in the case of a murder (or manslaughter, basically anything where the victim dies). like if the crime for which the person is being sentenced is say, a robbery or assault or something, then fair enough. But I don't like that this is done in the case where the victim per se is dead, for two reasons. the impact statements should come from the real victims, the cops who have suffered infringement of their monopoly on violence
|
|
#
?
Aug 29, 2023 19:54
|
|
|
Halisnacks posted:As it is, with the victims able to make their statements to the court, no it’s not retributive. If the convicted were forced to listen to the statements as part of their punishment, yes I would say that would be retribution. it would be barbarous of us to make the baby butcher listen to the families of those babies, you are right. we must look beyond such cruelty
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 13:41
|
|
|
I don’t think it would be barbarous or even over some commonsense line. It just would be a form of retribution. But I checked and apparently one of the aims of the U.K. justice system is in fact retribution (or, providing reparations to victims), so yeah now I don’t know what principle they were adhering to in not forcing her to attend.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 13:56
|
|
|
cumpantry posted:it would be barbarous of us to make the baby butcher listen to the families of those babies, you are right. we must look beyond such cruelty
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 13:58
|
|
|
Drone_Fragger posted:No it quite literally is - the issue in the UK is libel laws put onus on the person making the claim to prove it to an evidentiary standard. In the usa its the other way around, its on the claimant to prove that the libel was both malicious and knowingly false. thats kinda neat, thanks
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 14:57
|
|
|
I'm down for victim impact statements but only if a really dry royal economist, just a very royal fat Ben Stein, is rolled into the court room and allowed to read a 4 hour report on the economic damage to the Crown that is afforded to the calculus of all these babies not being able to grow up and pay taxes to the King. Thoroughly sourced and footnoted and read verbatim.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 21:59 |
|
|
zedprime posted:I'm down for victim impact statements but only if a really dry royal economist, just a very royal fat Ben Stein, is rolled into the court room and allowed to read a 4 hour report on the economic damage to the Crown that is afforded to the calculus of all these babies not being able to grow up and pay taxes to the King. Thoroughly sourced and footnoted and read verbatim. It should be Gilbert Gottfried doing this but this cruel baby killing world won’t even give us that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 30, 2023 17:28
|
|
