Why's the law strict on what's on paper?

Notavirus.exe

I'm referring to that time when a few drugs were made legal because of some mess up or something. It's common sense that they were and always will be illegal so why can't the government (or someone) say that they are still illegal despite whatever is officially written down?

I just don't get it. It can make some crazy loopholes happen.

hullaballoo

Are you taking the piss?

Notavirus.exe

hullaballoo wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

No, I just don't understand why the government can't step in and make verbal statements when things like this happen.

L1011

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

No, I just don't understand why the government can't step in and make verbal statements when things like this happen.

Because that's now how our (or any) legal system works.

Notavirus.exe

L1011 wrote: »

Because that's now how our (or any) legal system works.

My question is very vague. Why is there no common sense in this?

Tefral

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

My question is very vague. Why is there no common sense in this?

Think about what your saying for a minute. Laws are debated and signed off by a democratic government before they are "put on paper" if not any minister could make a law. That's how dictatorships happen.

Notavirus.exe

cronin_j wrote: »

Think about what your saying for a minute. Laws are debated and signed off by a democratic government before they are "put on paper" if not any minister could make a law. That's how dictatorships happen.

Yeah but what about when those drugs were legal for a day or two? Why couldn't anyone use common sense and say "They're still illegal"?

Sala

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Yeah but what about when those drugs were legal for a day or two? Why couldn't anyone use common sense and say "They're still illegal"?

Because they were not illegal? Things are not inherently illegal - legislation has to exist to outline how and in what form and what uses certain things are criminal
Offences. If that legislation fails everything in it has no weight.

I think you are over simplifying this

notabasicb

The rule of law is the legal principle that law should govern a nation, as opposed to being governed by arbitrary decisions of individual government officials. It primarily refers to the influence and authority of law within society, particularly as a constraint upon behaviour, including behaviour of government officials.

Rule of law requires that the law be ascertainable for everyone and applicable to everyone incl. governments. Allowing arbitrary statements to be law would unduly circumvent this requirement.

'Government' - the cabinet, parliamentary party don't make laws. Certainly given their majority in the legislature (Oireachtas) their legislative agenda will largely be fulfilled. But the votes of every TD counts, whether independent or a member of another party, when enacting laws. This means that democracy is operating. The legislative will of the people as characterised by their parliamentary representatives has a role in the legislative process.

The alternative, though somewhat lesser used method of law making due to increasing judicial deference to the Oireachtas, is by judicial common law precedent. Whereby legal principle is made through case law applicable then in lower courts/same level courts and rarely overturned except by higher courts. But today courts, to ensure the democratic will of the nation is respected, will be reticent to to make new broad statements of legal precedent and will favour waiting for legislation.

Apologies if this explanation is very dumbed down but I just wanted to highlight once you circumvent the above processes you simply do not live in a democracy.

the world wonders

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Why couldn't anyone use common sense and say "They're still illegal"?

A few questions:

1. Who exactly would "use common sense"? The Minister? The judges? The individual guards?
2. What if their version of "common sense" didn't coincide with my version or your version of "common sense"?

There's a reason why laws need to be written down rather than hauling people off to jail based on some unspecified version of "common sense".

Victor

You know when you hear some got off on a technicality? Well, that's because the law is technical.

Given the vagaries of people's memories (Send Three and Fourpence, We Are Going to a Dance), laws are written down so they can be remembered. If they weren't written down, there would be arguments over what was agreed. Writing them down means fewer arguments and less wasted time for the courts, police, lawyers and citizens.

Now, sometimes there is variation between what is intended and what is actually written down. For example, in one draft of the Road Traffic Act 2010 relating to alcohol breath testing, "mg" (milligrams) was used instead of "μg" (micrograms) - some computers and computer packages can't properly handle the μ symbol (miu - a Greek letter 'm') and it was written as 'm' in error.

It would have mean that to fail a breath test, drivers would have had to been breathing pure alcohol vapours.

So, those drugs that were 'legal for a day' - they weren't, they had been legal the whole time, it's just that nobody realised this.

Notavirus.exe

the world wonders wrote: »

A few questions:

1. Who exactly would "use common sense"? The Minister? The judges? The individual guards?
2. What if their version of "common sense" didn't coincide with my version or your version of "common sense"?

There's a reason why laws need to be written down rather than hauling people off to jail based on some unspecified version of "common sense".

Well let's just say that due to some mess up, murder technically became legal for a day. Let's say this guy went around killing hundreds of people. The next day murder becomes illegal again. Wouldn't everyone use common sense and put the guy in jail or would they technically not be allowed to because there was a mess up?

Victor

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Well let's just say that due to some mess up, murder technically became legal for a day. Let's say this guy went around killing hundreds of people. The next day murder becomes illegal again. Wouldn't everyone use common sense and put the guy in jail or would they technically not be allowed to because there was a mess up?

Murder is a poor example, as murder is both a statutory and common law offence, but you have a point. With very serious offences, things tend to be quite clear cut, the legislation is thorough and 'rules lawyering' isn't quite as effective. If nothing else, the person who "went around killing hundreds of people" would face a huge number of other charges.

the world wonders

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Well let's just say that due to some mess up, murder technically became legal for a day. Let's say this guy went around killing hundreds of people. The next day murder becomes illegal again. Wouldn't everyone use common sense and put the guy in jail or would they technically not be allowed to because there was a mess up?

If "murder" happened to become legal for one day on a technicality, they would instead charge him with hundreds of counts of:

1. manslaughter
2. causing actual bodily harm
3. possession of offensive weapons
4. assault
5. public order offenses
6. failure to comply with a direction of a member of an Garda Siochana

A judge would then have discretion to look at the circumstances and decide whether to impose consecutive or concurrent sentences. He would also face psychiatric evaluation and potential confinement.

Notavirus.exe

Victor wrote: »

Murder is a poor example

Yeah, I thought so. But another thing is when someone uses a cheeky loophole to do something illegal without breaking the law. I can't think of a good example of this, but when a judge or someone can clearly see that the person is bypassing the law on purpose, can't they do anything?

MarkAnthony

L1011 wrote: »

Because that's now how our (or any) legal system works.

L1011 meet Mr. Putin, Mr. Putin this is L1011. :pac:

Joking aside I quite agree with you but perhaps an amendment to any properly functioning legal system.

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Yeah, I thought so. But another thing is when someone uses a cheeky loophole to do something illegal without breaking the law. I can't think of a good example of this, but when a judge or someone can clearly see that the person is bypassing the law on purpose, can't they do anything?

Judges (in Ireland) can't 'legislate from the bench'. In other words they only apply and interpret the law. If for some reason legislation is poorly drafted there is little (not nothing but little) a Judge can do.

In out neighbouring jurisdiction Judges seem to have more freedom to set precedent (they still cant alter legislation ofc). However that can lead to a right mess, even with the more limited (IMO) power judges have here in relation to common law decisions we have some real humdingers now and again. Thats said I think the common law system is the better system but that's just me.

In shorts it's a checks and balances system. The other thing that is learnt by every first year law student (even I managed to pick that up) is that it is better 10 guilty men go free than one innocent is convicted. So yes, sometimes, justice may not seem to be done in the instant case.

hullaballoo wrote: »

Are you taking the piss?

In fairness to the OP, how many people have even bothered their arse to even have this thought let alone actually ask the question? Perhaps I'm being a snob but I would have though at least 50% of the population assume Judges can wave some magic wand and make a decision that everyone agrees with. That said I can see why some incredulity might creep in

Victor

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

when a judge or someone can clearly see that the person is bypassing the law on purpose, can't they do anything?

Two things:
* District court judges will sometimes play 'fast and hard' with what they see as people taking interpretation that are inconsistent with the intention of the legislation. The higher courts will take a more structured look at the legislation.
* People can ask that the legislation be changed.

4ensic15

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

Yeah, I thought so. But another thing is when someone uses a cheeky loophole to do something illegal without breaking the law. I can't think of a good example of this, but when a judge or someone can clearly see that the person is bypassing the law on purpose, can't they do anything?

They are either breaking the law or not. Apart from some stunts like a few adjournments and demanding written legal submissions and keeping the person hanging around in court all day, there is nothing a judge can do.

Pat Mustard

Notavirus.exe wrote: »

I'm referring to that time when a few drugs were made legal because of some mess up or something. It's common sense that they were and always will be illegal so why can't the government (or someone) say that they are still illegal despite whatever is officially written down?

I just don't get it. It can make some crazy loopholes happen.

Moderator:

Another inane thread with a deliberately vacuous question. Notavirus.exe, please do not open any new threads on this forum for a period of three weeks.

After the period of three weeks expires, please be more careful about the type of content that you post.

Trolling of any sort is unwelcome here.