←back to thread

628 points xbryanx | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
mrkramer ◴[] No.44531464[source]
I thought British legal system and computer forensics were serious but this case is just a travesty of justice.
replies(3): >>44531515 #>>44532159 #>>44532686 #
closewith ◴[] No.44531515[source]
The British legal system is and always has been a litany of injustices dressed up in formal attire. To be avoided at all costs.
replies(5): >>44531659 #>>44531827 #>>44531957 #>>44531964 #>>44532150 #
mathiaspoint ◴[] No.44531659[source]
That mess inspired the American legal system though, which is probably one of if not the best in the world.

IMO common law is still better than case law at least.

replies(3): >>44531738 #>>44531806 #>>44534471 #
zapzupnz ◴[] No.44531806[source]
I’m curious to know how American legal system is better than any other country’s. From the outside looking in, it looks just as broken if not worse.

You may have been kidding, but I’m sure someone will genuinely think so and have some decent arguments for it.

replies(1): >>44532142 #
tialaramex ◴[] No.44532142[source]
My favourite inspiration goes the opposite direction. The United States has this Supreme Court, a final Court of Appeal, politically independent and empowered even to decide that the government's actions are illegal. Sounds great.

The UK had this rather antique thing called the "Lords of Appeal in Ordinary" aka "Law Lords" who were in theory just some Lords (ie people who are arbitrarily in the upper chamber of the Parliament, maybe because their dad was) but served the same purpose as a final court of appeal in practice and so had for a very long time all been Judges because duh, of course they should be judges, that's a job for a judge, just make some judges Lords and forget about it. They met in some committee room in the Palace of Westminster, because they're Lords and that's where the Lords are, right? So, there was practical independence, but the appearance was not here.

About 15 years ago now, the dusty Law Lords were in the way of an attempted reform of parliament. A Supreme Court sounds like a good idea, so the UK got a Supreme Court. It fixed up a nice building nearby, gave the exact same people a new job title and sent them over the road. Done.

But the UK version does what it says on the tin. It said on the tin they're politically independent. In the US of course this "independence" is bullshit, but in the UK since there's already a politically independent process to pick judges the same process continues for the Supreme Court. So a Prime Minister might hate the supreme court but they can't pick the judges.

replies(2): >>44532350 #>>44533913 #
1. penguin_booze ◴[] No.44533913[source]
Politically independent?! Between an extremely dry sense of humour and sarcasm, I can't tell which.
replies(1): >>44536048 #
2. tialaramex ◴[] No.44536048[source]
I know I'm long winded, but, you did see there's a lot more text right?

The US Supreme Court says it's politically independent. And so the UK's Supreme Court just did that. It wasn't difficult, unlike the US the rest of our court system, including the predecessor "Law Lords" were in fact chosen by an independent non-political process already, the law making a Supreme Court more or less says "Oh, when we need more Supreme Court justices do the thing for judges again, only more so"