Why don't arguments get solved using applicable case law ?

dalalada

I see most posts here asking legal/policy (and all threads if case law applies) based questions/threads fail to actually get resolved and end up being a punching match. Why don't we use case law to quickly when applicable solve arguments? Or am I to futuristic in my thinking of how human interactions should be

Allinall

dalalada wrote: »

I see most posts here asking legal/policy (and all threads if case law applies) based questions/threads fail to actually get resolved and end up being a punching match. Why don't we use case law to quickly when applicable solve arguments? Or am I to futuristic in my thinking of how human interactions should be

Who’s going to win the premiership?

How is case law going to settle that argument?

pxdf9i5cmoavkz

Allinall wrote: »

Who’s going to win the premiership?

How is case law going to settle that argument?

Man City obviously.

SEPT 23 1989

That's fightin' talk

dalalada

dalalada wrote: »

I see most posts here asking legal/policy (and all threads if case law applies) based questions/threads fail to actually get resolved and end up being a punching match. Why don't we use case law to quickly when applicable solve arguments? Or am I to futuristic in my thinking of how human interactions should be

Because even the courts struggle with that.

Go and listen to a trial where lawyers make arguments about how cases ought/ought not to be distinguished from one another on the facts.

If things were as simple as referencing case law, the courts would be mostly empty.

arctictree

Wouldn't it be great if the whole legal system could just be automated! Garda, charges you with a crime and enters details into the system. Computer decides if you are guilty or not and assigns a penalty...

dalalada

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

dalalada wrote: »

I see most posts here asking legal/policy (and all threads if case law applies) based questions/threads fail to actually get resolved and end up being a punching match. Why don't we use case law to quickly when applicable solve arguments? Or am I to futuristic in my thinking of how human interactions should be

Because even the courts struggle with that.

Go and listen to a trial where lawyers make arguments about how cases ought/ought not to be distinguished from one another on the facts.

If things were as simple as referencing case law, the courts would be mostly empty.

This isn't court. At least stating applicable case law would propose an articulate direction of converation rather than the standard "Who will win priemership ( read my post you, legal based questions I'm on about)" or punching match as is standard on here. Makes Ireland look like knuckle draggers who can't solve basic problems already solved in court.

dalalada

dalalada wrote: »

Makes Ireland look like knuckle draggers who can't solve basic problems already solved in court.

I'm sure you'll find that a similar discourse happens everywhere else in the world, without people citing case-law down the pub or on the internet.

Also, most members of the public don't have access to subscription-only sites like Westlaw, Justis and Lexis.

In most cases, it's irrelevant. People are usually giving their opinions on what the law ought to be - an important exchange of ideas in a democratic society - only a small minority of non-lawyers (nor am I a lawyer myself) attempt to hold court on the finer aspects of jurisprudence and precedent; and those people are best ignored in the first place.

Ten of Swords

Do you resolve arguments between your students by wowing them with case law and precedent?

mad muffin

Bring back dueling I say.

dalalada

Ten of Swords wrote: »

Do you resolve arguments between your students by wowing them with case law and precedent?

Are you illiterate? go and read my post. the whole idea is to avoid an "arguement" in the first place by solving the LEGAL based question/thread issue with previous case law on the subject.

But thanks for proving my knuckle dragger point

Mod-Banned

Ken.

Mod-Dalalada thread banned

Samuel T. Cogley

Because there is a Legal Discussions forum.

mad muffin

Thread banned from their own thread. Must be some kind of Godwin…

touts

dalalada wrote: »

I see most posts here asking legal/policy (and all threads if case law applies) based questions/threads fail to actually get resolved and end up being a punching match. Why don't we use case law to quickly when applicable solve arguments? Or am I to futuristic in my thinking of how human interactions should be

One of the industries always said to be most at risk from AI is the Justice Industry. But it's unlikely that the Judges, Lawyers and administrators that have perfected fleecing the taxpayer through the Repeat Offender gravy train will all go quitely into the night. So while the law may be one of the easiest professions to automate it is likely to be one of the last.

Samuel T. Cogley

In the case of Nosnon v Dalalada...

Samuel T. Cogley

touts wrote: »

One of the industries always said to be most at risk from AI is the Justice Industry. But it's unlikely that the Judges, Lawyers and administrators that have perfected fleecing the taxpayer through the Repeat Offender gravy train will all go quitely into the night. So while the law may be one of the easiest professions to automate it is likely to be one of the last.

I've literally never heard anyone say that. It's completely absurd.

Ken.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

In the case of Nosnon v Dalalada...

Boards have really come through for me. Hired me the best lawyer in the world.

touts

touts wrote: »

One of the industries always said to be most at risk from AI is the Justice Industry. But it's unlikely that the Judges, Lawyers and administrators that have perfected fleecing the taxpayer through the Repeat Offender gravy train will all go quitely into the night. So while the law may be one of the easiest professions to automate it is likely to be one of the last.

Really? I always felt as though medicine, allied health-care professions and legal practice were the least likely professions to be automated.

I mean, it's 2019 and you still can't board or disembark from a major airline without having a human being-check your passport - most of which are biometric, anyway.

I'm a member of a public library where most customers still prefer to queue to interact with a human, rather than with a machine.

I wouldn't be quite so quick to predict the extinction of a far more crucial industry like legal services.

LessOutragePlz

touts wrote: »

One of the industries always said to be most at risk from AI is the Justice Industry. But it's unlikely that the Judges, Lawyers and administrators that have perfected fleecing the taxpayer through the Repeat Offender gravy train will all go quitely into the night. So while the law may be one of the easiest professions to automate it is likely to be one of the last.

What a load of nonsense the day we are judged by some sort of AI is the day the aliens come to visit us.