bookworm fellow
Member
Yeah, no one could be so naive to say law is perfect. It really isn't. And as I can see, I have the same opinion of yours and also of the great majoryt of the people taking part in this tread. A system that could replace this one would be something that would make a huge benefit for all the peoples. When I say I don't agree with nyse's ideas, I mean I don't agree with him because he did nothing more than repeating law is bad or not perfect. Of course it is not perfect! But what makes me (and probably many other readers of the tread) unable to agree with him is that he did not designed a solution to fix this problem each one of us dislike, which is the non perfection of the law as an institution to bring us justice. It's well know a change in the legal reign is necessary. The problem is that nyse--and probably no one else--don't have a solution for this problem. He only point the problem, and this is redundant. But that is his opinion, I'm OK with that.
If not annoying, it would be funny someone to think that, only because I'm a law student, any comment I present concerning juridical subjects would be to praise law. And this position of his is so contradictable regarding my ideas that I wonder if he read anything of what I and others write. Someone must live in a bubble to think that studying in a law academy means necessarily one will be an advocate; or that he could not have scientific-only purposes; or, yet, that he could not be performing those second or sixty steps of the scientific investigation that I commented in my previous post.
The reasons why it's so difficult to elaborate a new juridical system are exposed in the many posts of this tread and I'll not repeat them (no redundancy...). Also, I refuse to forget the real world and adopt a simple and made-in-five-minutes system that sounds impracticable since the very first words of its description.