79 votes

Why are there no laws rewarding people

There are plenty of laws that reward people These include: Literal rewards - payment for information leading to an arrest/conviction. Welfare systems - the government is literally paying money in ...
user avatar
  • 151k
37 votes

Can a witness be ignorant about a question asked to him in court?

In addition to David's answer - it's more than acceptable for a witness to say that they don't know the answer; it's a requirement of their oath / affirmation to say "I don't know" if they ...
user avatar
  • 22.2k
33 votes
Accepted

Do various common law sovereign citizen movement theories have any kernels of basis in fact?

Does this theory have any basis in current or historical fact? Not really. The sovereign citizen movement uses legal terms, but not correctly, and often confounded with Biblical doctrine, and hones ...
user avatar
  • 134k
30 votes
Accepted

Can a witness be ignorant about a question asked to him in court?

Yes "I don't know" answers are quite common in trials, and are perfectly acceptable. Indeed in some cases the aim of a question, particularly on cross examination, may be to get a witness to ...
user avatar
  • 92.8k
29 votes
Accepted

In the US are jurors actually judging guilt?

Short answer, yes, jurors will typically render a decision of guilt vs. innocence. This is pretty common in nations where the legal system is derived from British Common Law (about 2 billion people ...
user avatar
  • 16.3k
25 votes

Why are there no laws rewarding people

In the UK, judges sitting on criminal cases can award cash sums to individuals for exceptionally public-spirited actions which have come to light during the trial. For many years the customary sum was ...
user avatar
23 votes

Is natural law a type of common law?

No, Natural law is not a type or subset of Common Law Natural Law is derived from what some person thinks is a logical and obvious rule, or what some person thinks is God's Law. There are many ...
user avatar
  • 92.8k
17 votes

Legal/jurisprudential term to refer to any evidence that can be interpreted either way

Is there such a phrase in jurisprudential or legal thought? In those instances it is common to say that the evidence is inconclusive. Accordingly, it is unavailing because that evidence does not ...
user avatar
14 votes

Is there a term for using law as the basis of morality?

You're thinking of legalism. It can have different meanings -- especially in Chinese legal/philosophical history -- but is the best match to the concept you're describing.
user avatar
  • 44.1k
14 votes

Why are there no laws rewarding people

Boy, the "yeah-but" gang just hates this question. I added a bit at the end about how to see for yourself. The rule of law exists to replace any of these: { violence, extortion, corruption ...
user avatar
12 votes

Why do some laws make saying "Heil Hitler" illegal when other laws allow freedom of political speach?

Any country is their own sovereign There is no international law that demands any state to allow anyone free speech of all kinds. Remember that your rights end where the rights of others [incl. ...
user avatar
  • 13.8k
11 votes
Accepted

Legal/jurisprudential term to refer to any evidence that can be interpreted either way

While not a "one word answer", the phrase that I most frequently see for that concept is "susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation". The concept, by the way, is ...
user avatar
  • 134k
11 votes

Is there a situation where someone can be sanctioned without trial?

In the US, if a person enters a guilty plea, a judge may proceed to convict and sentence the accused without any form of trial. In the case of minor offenses with possible penalties of less than six ...
user avatar
  • 92.8k
10 votes

Can a witness be ignorant about a question asked to him in court?

Banning 'I don't know' would be contrary to witnesses needing to be truthful Let's propose the following question asked by an attorney (and it would have a good reason to be asked, with the answer ...
user avatar
  • 13.8k
9 votes

Does acceptance of communication with identifying characteristics originating from a disputed territory imply recognition of that territory?

No Recognition of territorial claims is the sole province of the diplomatic branches of national government, and of heads of state. In the US it is the State Department, and ultimately the President. ...
user avatar
  • 92.8k
8 votes

In the US are jurors actually judging guilt?

Is it true that in US law jurors are not actually judging guilt, but rather whether the case against a person has been made in accordance with the concepts of all reasonable doubt? It is not true, ...
user avatar
  • 24.9k
8 votes

Is there a situation where someone can be sanctioned without trial?

In the US, this can happen for contempt of court if it happens in open court. If the judge thinks the contempt needs to be dealt with immediately, they can convict and sentence on the spot. The person ...
user avatar
  • 20.7k
7 votes

In the USA, why are witnesses who demonstrated prejudice and bias not immediately removed and disqualified?

Prejudice and bias goes to credibility The trier of fact has to decide how much weight to give each piece of evidence including witness testimony. A clearly prejudiced or biased witness will, all else ...
user avatar
  • 151k
7 votes

Does acceptance of communication with identifying characteristics originating from a disputed territory imply recognition of that territory?

No As a matter of international law, each country is free to accept or reject the territorial claims (and even the existence) of every other country. Many nations do not recognize Russia’s claims over ...
user avatar
  • 151k
7 votes

How can one utilize an "objective observer", if one cannot be such?

The objective observer is not a real person She is one of a number of imaginary people who are used in law to inform judges and jurors how they should intellectually engage with a legal issue. We may ...
user avatar
  • 151k
6 votes

How can one utilize an "objective observer", if one cannot be such?

The key word in your quoted text is "if" meaning that such a person need not be present at the relevant time. Rather, a judge or jury using, for example, their life experiences, common sense ...
user avatar
  • 22.2k
6 votes

Legal/jurisprudential term to refer to any evidence that can be interpreted either way

It's not a technical legal term, but most lawyers would refer to this using the same word you did: as "ambiguous" evidence.
user avatar
  • 44.1k
6 votes

Why are there no laws rewarding people

Many incentives exist granting "free money" or awarding special protections for someone that takes special actions, which exist in a variety of contexts. For example, the U.S. congress ...
user avatar
5 votes

Trying to get sued?

Anti-abortion laws in the US The heavy-handed laws introduced in some states are a deliberate challenge to Roe v Wade and are designed so that the state will lose a case and appeal all the way to the ...
user avatar
  • 151k
5 votes

How can two people be innocent until proven guilty if their stories conflict?

You misunderstand the significance of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty." This is in part because you are not considering the entire phrase. The full phrase is that an accused party is "...
user avatar
  • 24.9k
5 votes

Is there a legal system or theory where punishment is proportional to the probability of an offence?

Interesting question. We know from cases involving twins that even when you know for a fact one of two people committed a crime (say, because of highly incriminating DNA evidence), both twins will be ...
user avatar
5 votes

Is there a legal system or theory where punishment is proportional to the probability of an offence?

No legal systems (officially) compute punishment based on strength of evidence for conviction. The reason is simple: justice is a relationship between an act and its consequences, not a relationship ...
user avatar
  • 160k
5 votes

Is there liability for pure accidents?

To win a negligence claim, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant: had a duty to the plaintiff, breached that duty by failing to conform to the required standard of conduct (generally the ...
user avatar
  • 151k
5 votes

Legal theory of the accomplice

Errors in the Question Of course, this is not actually what really happens. What really happens is that the original crime is not tried. It is simply ASSUMED to have taken place and there is a ...
user avatar
  • 92.8k

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible