What Janszoon is saying, is that the role of the court in this situation wasn't to provide a punishment or judgement of an individual, it was to determine whether the existing laws actually applied here, in order to both prevent the law being taken too far out of a zone where it would actually apply, and also to potentially highlight the need for a review of that law to account for these specific cases.
In other words, the court's job here was to pave the way for laws to be rewritten in future to account for this and protect and safeguard citizens, without relying on precedent and laws taken out of context/skewed to suit a purpose.
This is an immediate setback, but in future it supposedly provides a way for a more black and white, and more clearly delineated law to be made and put into action, that will both safeguard the public and also simplify the process of obtaining a conviction for these actions.
At least, so the theory goes. I don't necessarily have full confidence in it, but I do understand that Janszoon is pointing out the role of the judgement made was not to "let off" anyone - it was to prevent an overly generous interpretation of an existing law, while still potentially recognising the need for a law covering that case.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pedestrian
As for me, my inbox is as of yet testicle-free, and hopefully remains that way. Don't the rest of you get any ideas.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trollheart
I'll have you know, my ancestors were Kings of Wicklow! We're as Irish as losing a three-nil lead in a must-win fixture!
|
|