gazarsgo
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
5
   |
Posted - 2012.05.25 19:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Kratisto wrote:What I find most amusing about this thread is Outbreak. and Hydra attempting to lawyer their way into the tournament. That works in civil courts with laws and rules, and accountability of judges.
What's funny is that they would lose. From Oliver Wendell Holmes, on the fundamentals of Western legal practice:
"Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it. The principle cannot be explained b-â -òay-ûng that we are not only commanded to abstain from certain actsGÇÜ but also to f-ûnd out that we are commanded. For if there were such a second command, it is ver-â clear that the guilt of failing to obe-â it would bear no proportion to that of di-òobey-ûng the principal command if knownGÇÜ yet the fa-ûlure to know would receive the same punishment as the failure to obe-â the principal law. Public polic-â -òacr-ûfices the individual to the general good. It is desirable that the burden of all should be equalGÇÜ but -ût is still more desirable to put an end to robber-â and murder. For the most partGÇÜ the purpose of the cr-ûminal law is onl-â to induce external conformit-â to rule. Considering this purel-â external purpose of the law together with the fact that it is read-â to -òacr-ûfice the individual so far as necessary in order to accomplish that purposeGÇÜ we can see more read-ûl-â than before that the actual degree of personal guilt involved in an-â particular tran-ògress-ûon cannot be the only elementGÇÜ -ûf it is an element at all, in the liabilit-â incurred. It is found in the conception of the average man, the man of ordinar-â intelligence and rea-òonable prudence. L-ûability is said to arise out of such conduct as would be blameworthy in him. But he is an ideal beingGÇÜ represented by the jury when they are appealed to, and h-ûs conduct is an external or objective standard when applied to an-â given individual. That individual ma-â be morally without -òta-ûn, because he has less than ordinary intelligence or prudence. But he is required to have those qualities at his peril. If he has them, he will not, as a general rule, incur liability without blameworthiness."
TL;DR:
None of us read the laws on the books, but we abide by the law anyway because we know that certain conduct is not acceptable in society. Holmes suggests that those people who read the rules and ask questions about the interpretations of those rules are only trying to break those rules. Instead, the most morally praiseworthy individuals go about their business with no knowledge of the specifics of the law, but merely conform to how a reasonable person in society would behave. The implication of this theory is a principle deeply rooted in our legal system: mistake of law (i.e., misinterpreting the meaning of a law) is generally no excuse against guilt for breaking that law.
Hydra-Outbreak have committed such a mistake of law - they misinterpreted the meaning of the rule against B teams. In the real world, in almost all cases, a mistake of law still results in a conviction.
There are a number of exceptions against the general rule against mistake of law. The only relevant exception for Hydra-Outbreak is the reliance exception: If the individual has relied on an official interpretation of the law, then mistake of law can be a good defense against guilt. Importantly, "official interpretation" means something very specific in legal terminology. So, if I go to the district attorney and ask clarification on a law, and the district attorney (DA) gives me a piece of paper with his signature on it saying that my behavior is OK, and then I do the behavior that turns out to be illegal, I am still not off the hook. The DA's memo is not considered an official interpretation! Rather, an official interpretation must be published, in either a high court decision or a publicly-available publication by the agency in charge of enforcement. In the Hydra-Outbreak situation, the GM correspondence is not an official interpretation, since a random GM's petition response is more analogous to a DA's memo than to an official published opinion by an executive agency.
TL;DR of the TL;DR: Hydra-Outbreak were not reasonable in their reliance on a Senior GM's statement when Hydra-Outbreak knew or should have known that a Senior GM's statement was not endorsed by the tournament organizers. Even if they try to "lawyer" their way into the tournament, their argument would still lose.
|
gazarsgo
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
5
|
Posted - 2012.05.25 19:34:00 -
[2] - Quote
Pallidum Treponema wrote:Ah, but in real life there are also so many laws that no one can be expected to know them all. Many laws in existence also are severely outdated, or so broad that they can be interpreted to mean anything.
Many law enforcement officials, as well as prosecutors have also been known to abuse this fact in order to prosecute people for breaking an obscure law when they've wanted a conviction but was unable to convict for a more reasonable crime.
And you raise an important point - the breadth of prosecutorial discretion. Since the Hydra-Outbreak ban does not offend any notion of fair play or substantial justice, CCP as the prosecutor and judge can do pretty much whatever they want. |