No Stupid Questions
No such thing. Ask away!
!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.
The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:
Rules (interactive)
Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.
All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.
Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.
Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.
Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.
Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.
Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.
That's it.
Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.
Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.
Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.
Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.
On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.
If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.
Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.
If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.
Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.
Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.
Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.
Let everyone have their own content.
Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.
Credits
Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!
The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!
view the rest of the comments
Your argument and answer: U.S. law, and most other modern judicial systems, rely on something called precedent. If a judge makes a ruling that creates such precedent, another judge handling a similar case cannot simply ignore it.
There was no new ruling in any of the cases Donald Trump was involved in; therefore, no new precedent was established.
When it comes to sentencing, a judge can and oftentimes does, have leeway to impose punishment as leniently or as harshly as they see fit.
If you commit a crime and are convicted, you could argue at sentencing that, since Trump received leniency, you should also receive a similarly light sentence. Unfortunately when it comes to sentencing a court is not obligated to take into consideration how other criminals were sentenced.
Citation needed. Most of the "modern" countries use civil law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law
The very second sentence of that Wikipedia page says that common law is built on precedent.
OK, here's a breakdown from me, a person who is not remotely a lawyer. I'll be using the most common names for things; they might be called something different in your country.
The highest form of law is the Constitution. A Constitution is a sort of meta-law which defines what parliament can and can't do. If a law contradicts the Constitution, it's invalid. Because the Constitution is so important, changing it normally requires a referendum. Not every country has a Constitution; Britain is notorious for lacking one.
Below the Constitution is statute law. This is where the parliament writes a new law, which can and often does override existing law. The president (or monarch if your country really needs to get with the times) usually has the power to veto any act of parliament, but it's vanishingly rare they will do so except in cases where the new law is unconstitutional.
Common law refers to clarifications on existing laws made by judges, who are supposed to be Lawful Neutral on such matters. For example, let's say parliament successfully passed a law requiring people to wear hats outside. If I see my Sikh neighbour wearing a turban, I would report him to the cops for failure to wear a hat. In court, my neighbour's lawyer argues that, based in IRS shape and function, a turban is a type of hat. The judge agrees, and rules that my neighbour did not violate the hat law, and so I need to pay all the legal fees.
Now, whenever somebody reports a Sikh for failure to wear a hat, lawyers will cite the case of Me vs My Neighbour, wherein it was determined that a turban counts as a hat. Precedent is important, because if we're going to have laws, they are supposed to apply consistently to everybody. It's no good if getting to wear a turban depends on the whim of the cops or the judge that day.
Parliament can, of course, change the rules by making a new law which defines 'hat' in such a way that does not include turbans. Under the new law, people could be prosecuted for wearing turbans without hats, if they do so after the new law comes into force.
You’re right, I was overgeneralizing.
I assumed most legal systems relied on precedent, but that’s not accurate globally. The majority of countries follow civil law systems, like France and Germany, where precedent isn’t binding in the same way.
Where I was coming from is that many of the largest and most economically influential countries like the United States, United Kingdom, and India do use precedent-based systems, which probably skewed my perception. So yeah, globally I was wrong, but I can see why I thought that.