Remix.run Logo
▲ MisterMunchkin 2 hours ago

Nobody gets upset, they just think you’re silly. Law simplification is just a classic time waste discussion. But I’ll waste 30 seconds on it for you.

Consider a simple crime, murder. Let’s simplify it to “if you kill someone, that’s murder and you get life”

But then what if I’m being stabbed by the person I kill?

Okay so self defence.

But then what if I say it’s self defence but factually that’s incorrect, but I genuinely believed it was self defence?

What if I’m a soldier and I’m shooting an enemy?

What if I shoot them because they’re raping my child?

What if I’m shooting them because they raped my child ten years ago and I’ve been plotting my revenge ever since?

What if someone said they’ll shoot me if I didn’t shoot them?

What if I was in psychosis and thought they were going to kill me?

What if I thought they were a deer and shot them by mistake while hunting?

It turns out we have all these laws in this particular way because of thousands of years of work dealing with all of these issues.

▲p-e-w an hour ago | parent [-]

Other than genuine self defense, I disagree with every single “justification” you listed. So yes, in my eyes (and the eyes of many other people I expect), the law could be substantially simplified.

▲2muchcoffeeman 31 minutes ago | parent [-]

Did the post actually justify anything? Reads like a list of things that make simplification of laws hard.

And if you can’t sympathise with any of those cases, I hope you’re never called upon to decide anything involving other people.