Skip to main content
Worldbuilding

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ A major problem with the use of precedent is that it gives disproportionate power to dishonest judges, since good judges will generally presume that the other (dishonest) judges were acting in good faith, and follow the precedents set thereby, while the bad judges will capriciously ignore the precedent set by good judges. $\endgroup$
    – supercat
    Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 23:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Also, when writing answers on Stack Overflow, you should precede dollar signs with backslashes unless you want to embed TeX expressions. Something like $foo $bar will treat foo as a TeX expression (yielding $foo $bar); if you want do show monetary amounts, use \$foo \$bar. $\endgroup$
    – supercat
    Commented Sep 8, 2015 at 23:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @supercat RE dollar signs: Yes, I keep forgetting that. thanks. $\endgroup$
    – Jay
    Commented Sep 9, 2015 at 5:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ In simplest terms, the problem breaks down to where on this line do you want your legal system to be? On one end, the judges have absolute power to decide the difficult cases, risking tyranny by those judges, and on the other we hamstring them by creating written rules that get more and more complex and detailed every time someone finds a new problem not covered by the old rules. It's human nature to game the system to maximize your own benefit. Unless you change human nature and/or find incorruptible judges, legal systems won't work perfectly. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Ripley
    Commented Jul 24, 2016 at 8:40
  • $\begingroup$ One of the most interesting takes on "fair" legal systems is the concept of make a ruling without knowing anything about the person who will benefit. It's related to the "Justice is blind" concept. If person A did something to person B, the rules should be the same for person A, no matter if they are a street person or a Senator. If the judge, jury or whoever make decisions in a case are able to be unaware of facts unrelated to the legal issue, they are less likely to make decisions outsiders might see as "unfair", such as based on skin color, gender, or social class of the accused. $\endgroup$
    – Mark Ripley
    Commented Jul 24, 2016 at 8:46