law constitutes justice?

• despondent

  9 May 06, 22:40

  well, juz had sth in my mind abt the law...i feel tat though the law is there to ensure order in the country, it has many flaws...below i cite a classic case which i believe do happen in real life n the victim is the one jailed instead...
  
  a woman was walking home one day...as she passed by the park to her home, a man emerged from nowhere n pinned her down...the man then tried to strip her n molest her...the woman struggled hard and fought to protect herself...in the midst of the struggfle, the man was pushed hard backwards...unfortunately, he slipped n fell...he rolled down the slope, bumped his head against the railing n died...
  
  the woman was tried in court...though she acted out of self-defence...the law states tat when u kill someone unintentionally, its considered manslaughter...hence a jail term awaits u...the woman was sent to jail...
  
  my pt is tis...does the case above warrant a jail term for the woman? she acted in self-defence rite? tis rigid law is implying to us nt to act out in self-defence...cos in a struggle, u dunno wad wil happen...so how? shld women juz let the men molest/rape them without putting up a struggle? tis is juz one of the exceptional cases...there r others...wad r ur views? is the law fair for tis case?
• leoloe

  10 May 06, 00:31

  the law is mostly unfair here because they enforce the governments policies and their dictatorship rule... do you think its fair? being a threat to the govt and you get F KED till you rather die.... and all you did to be a threat is gain public support against them.... that is true dictatorship. i believe if its self defence , that the lady should not even be arrested or charged. raises the question why defensive products such as pepper spray and tazers are not sold here , why ? cuz the govt thinks its an offensive weapon... I think they help the females more...
• Himbo

  10 May 06, 13:21

  If this case happens in real life....it is highly unlikely that the woman will be charged for anything i think....there's something about using excessive force in self defence.
  unless the police have reasons to doubt her account of things....
  
  It is different if you caught someone trying to pick your pocket and you beat him till he liver burst....then it's excessive force.
• leoloe

  10 May 06, 22:30

  your life is on the line if you dont disable the person who tried to assualt / rape / molest etc... if your life is in danger , anything which you deem is the right thing to do , is the right thing to do
• hisoka

  10 May 06, 22:43

  Originally posted by leoloe:

  your life is on the line if you dont disable the person who tried to assualt / rape / molest etc... if your life is in danger , anything which you deem is the right thing to do , is the right thing to do

  if i'm not wrong thats not the case. the stupid excessive force thing for one.
• despondent

  30 May 06, 01:20

  hello, i am back again!!! i would like to bring up another topic abt te law for discussion. its abt alimony claims upon divorce...
  
  we noe tat when a couple divorce, the female has the rite to claim alimony from the man especially if the man is the unfaithful party. nw it must be noted tat these laws were set during the times when women were the weaker sex n were dependent on the men for survival. however, i wanna point out tat nowadays, most women especially in singapore r self-sufficient n independent...they no longer need to rely on the husband's income for survival. moreover, survey has shown tat there r more n more women who r the unfaithful party in marriages.
  
  my pont is tis...in an advancing society like tis...shldnt the law be amended to treat both sexes equally? maybe allow the men to claim alimony if the wife is the unfaithful party? when man unfaithful, he pays the price of paing alimony...but if woman is unfaithful, wad price she pay? do u tink the law is outdated in tis area? air ur views...
• oxford mushroom

  30 May 06, 15:43

  Originally posted by despondent:

  hello, i am back again!!! i would like to bring up another topic abt te law for discussion. its abt alimony claims upon divorce...
  
  we noe tat when a couple divorce, the female has the rite to claim alimony from the man especially if the man is the unfaithful party. nw it must be noted tat these laws were set during the times when women were the weaker sex n were dependent on the men for survival. however, i wanna point out tat nowadays, most women especially in singapore r self-sufficient n independent...they no longer need to rely on the husband's income for survival. moreover, survey has shown tat there r more n more women who r the unfaithful party in marriages.
  
  my pont is tis...in an advancing society like tis...shldnt the law be amended to treat both sexes equally? maybe allow the men to claim alimony if the wife is the unfaithful party? when man unfaithful, he pays the price of paing alimony...but if woman is unfaithful, wad price she pay? do u tink the law is outdated in tis area? air ur views...

  Alimony is awarded based on the principle that a spouse is entitled to the standard of living he or she has been accustomed to and the amount therefore may vary according to the period of marriage. Contrary to popular belief, fault in a marriage has very little to do with the award of alimony. The British court has recently ruled in two landmark cases which affirm this long-held principle. Faithfulness in a marriage is not an issue. However, to claim alimony the partner must be seen to have contributed to the marriage...non-financial contribution such as housework and bringing up children is considered sufficient for this purpose.
  
  Men can claim alimony as well as wives...so the trick is to make sure you marry a richer spouse. If you separate, you stand to gain up to half the assets. That's why in the US, rich people resort to pre-nuptial agreements. Unfortunately, both in British and Singapore courts, pre-nuptial agreements are not binding and are not usually respected by the judge. For this reason, it is financially illogical to marry if you are much wealthier than your partner. Divorce is a very expensive gift to your partner.
  
  That is one reason more and more couples choose to cohabit rather than get married in the UK.
• SilverPal

  30 May 06, 17:46

  Originally posted by leoloe:

  your life is on the line if you dont disable the person who tried to assualt / rape / molest etc... if your life is in danger , anything which you deem is the right thing to do , is the right thing to do

  Alternatively this woman, living in a country that would let the women off scott free wrt the previous scenario, decides to kill a man for reasons only known to herself. She kills the man, puts bruises on herself and claims that she was almost raped.
  
  I know of a man who caught his wife in bed with another man. He slapped her and walked out of the house. The smart woman went straight to the police and claimed that she was a victim of abuse by her husband. She managed to get a restraining order against him. Is it fair? Is it unfair?
  
  The law tries its best to prevent people from abusing it for their personal agendas. Some people may have found loopholes, but for the most part, the judge tries to inteprete it as reasonably as possible.
• oxford mushroom

  31 May 06, 05:05

  Originally posted by SilverPal:

  Alternatively this woman, living in a country that would let the women off scott free wrt the previous scenario, decides to kill a man for reasons only known to herself. She kills the man, puts bruises on herself and claims that she was almost raped.
  
  I know of a man who caught his wife in bed with another man. He slapped her and walked out of the house. The smart woman went straight to the police and claimed that she was a victim of abuse by her husband. She managed to get a restraining order against him. Is it fair? Is it unfair?
  
  The law tries its best to prevent people from abusing it for their personal agendas. Some people may have found loopholes, but for the most part, the judge tries to inteprete it as reasonably as possible.

  Under our law, there is no law against adultery...there is against assault.
  
  Under Sharia law, the wife would be stoned to death.
  
  You prefer Sharia law instead?
• Gedanken

  31 May 06, 07:54

  Of course law does not constitute justice. Until you can write a usable set of rules to follow, that can anticipate any and all possible situations, and also a process by which you can ABSOLUTELY get the whole truth from witnesses, you cannot possibly get justice from the legal system.
  
  As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes said ages ago, "My job is to uphold the law, not to do justice".
• SilverPal

  31 May 06, 15:36

  Originally posted by oxford mushroom:

  Under our law, there is no law against adultery...there is against assault.
  
  Under Sharia law, the wife would be stoned to death.
  
  You prefer Sharia law instead?

  I didn't know that. Think I'll stick to our law in case I need to outsource the scratching of my 7 year itch.