🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4shk6f$jpr@news.inforamp.net>, Xanlithe <jay@inforamp.net> wrote:
>In article <4sgdk0$ifi@news.interlog.com>, alchemy@interlog.com says...
>>

>	Forgive me if I'm wrong (and I probably am), but the law is more 
>about precedents than actual law. If one can prove/demonstrate/cite 
>precendents then one is lawfully correct. If one can disprove or debunk a 
>current precedent, then that will be how current law will be interpreted.
>	The "law" is interpreted by lawyers, for lawyers. Some precendents go 
>back to the 18th century in British common law. Small wonder that some 
>current decisions are suspect. Cite that precedent!!

You are (wrong). What you are describing is Common Law. Which for the most
part governs how civil suits work.

Criminal Law is stature based. I.e. based on a statute enacted out law makers
the legislature.

Statute based law is interpreted differently from precendant based law. The
former is interpreted strictly according to the statute itself (you have to
fit the exact scenario envisioned by the law makers) the latter is
interpreted by trying to find the closest precendant and/or following
general legal principles.

In many cases Statute based law will override Common Law. So in many cases
you have to base your behaviour on multiple overlapping and perhaps
contradictory statutes which modify Common Law and other more general 
legal principles. 

Which is why everyone always says consult your lawyer......!!!!

-- 
Stuart Lynne <sl@wimsey.com>      604-933-1000      <http://www.wimsey.com>
PGP Fingerprint: 28 E2 A0 15 99 62 9A 00  88 EC A3 EE 2D 1C 15 68