age limitations

[Rights Fighter]

No. Law is not a science.

[frankgallagherwasere]

Maybe not if one thinks of Biology, Chemistry and Physics an their many derivatives, but if you have an equation with variables then it holds unknown values which require a scientific methodology/theory/formula to calculate your answer.

I do understand its not a natural science as such but like maths it holds quantitative properties which require a scientific approach if one is to substantiate a truthful and accurate answer.

But since they apply psychology then its delivery is done in with scientific methods. But Im obviously clutching onto string to justify my reasoning, more like a slippery rubber band and Im losing my grip - so Id better stop before I completely lose position.

[Rights Fighter]

Law does not hold up in court as a Science. End of.

[frankgallagherwasere]

Law itself isnt on trial here only those who uphold it and others who suffer from its misuse. I agree with you, END OF.

[friday]

i do agree that trials result in game playing on the part of barristers and sometimes witnesses/victims/accused. reading books on forensic psychology before the second court case meant i could see the tactics his barrister was using. in that respect it is like an essay. the barristers are merely trying to persuade the jury to take their side and that their opinion is better than the others. the evidence does seem to take a back seat.

law is not a science but i did expect it to be more legalistic and objective than it actually appeared to be in court.

[frankgallagherwasere]

and when Barristers misuse data information and evidence then one could argue they run the risk of being accused and charged with perverting the course of justice. No one expects a lawyer and judicial system to simply make up its own accustions in court or use sweeping suggestions from statements without grounds and especially when there is evidence to disqualify it. After all its the role of the CPS to quantify statements and if they havent then they too must be held responsible for not fulfilling their role.

This is where the evidence of collusions plays its part as you would expect one party to call foul should the other overset their remit - however as many of us know this simply does not happen in many instances.

As with age or other laws that are being used in court to try and gain convictions they should be considered for their intended purpose not sometimes their abuse by crown. Consent I believe is a major issue as I have said before and simply too open to abuse by anyone with a twisted mind, but then being able to accuse anyone by word alone is not in my eyes and mind lawful and acceptable - no matter how bed the crime and damage, evidence and proof MUST be the primary consideration.