display | more...

The times are changing. Entire governments are up and down in some times in as little as months. More and more people are sharing ideas at a faster rate than ever before, and it's only going to get faster. People are smarter, technology is evolving at a rate unseen since the Renaissance. And these days, we expect precedent to mean anything? It used to be in our court system that one could be bailed from a crime if a judge had ruled in his favor on the same crime years back. However, nowadays, things don't work that way. Internet crime is a new an uncharted territory, and all previous rulings mean nothing because everything will have changed by the time the next hearing occurs. Our law system is about to go under a drastic rennovation, and it's going to take some people down with it. Stay safe out there.

I think this could be a deeper idea than presented here.

Precedent, as a rule, is a bad thing. Precedent is what prevents change; it doesn't allow people to look at a situation clearly. It causes everyone to look at things like "Well, back in 1384, we said this, so let's go with that." Precedent made seperate but equal legal for 50 years (Plessy vs. Ferguson). One court from 100 years ago says "Foo" and that's the way it is forever.

A better way to do it would be to ban precedent in the court room. This would allow a court case to have weight (it's the law) and yet prevents people from using it for 100 years (the next case would have to be heard).

Log in or register to write something here or to contact authors.