Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

>Our laws aren't written in away that says if you steal something, and the value to others out weights the crime of stealing, then its not stealing.

Well, that's bad. And it has been known to be bad since the time of Les Miserables at least...

>Who in your opinion makes the choice of "what was unearthed is justified to be unearthed?" A judge, a police officer, a prosecutor, or a jury of his peers?

The jury of peers. But we're still on the court of public/pundit opinion, and many are making arguments as if the technical aspects of the law outweigh any benefits -- in fact as if breaking the law itself is morally condemnable whatever the circumstance. So I wanted to counter that.

Besides, are the people which will be jury really "peers" when the act might benefit humanity at large, but they are tied to a particular nation state (one he doesn't even belong to)?

"Peers" original intention was to be people "related to the community/society the accused lives in" with the same public interests (and moral ideas).

It's not bad, how do you suppose a law like this would make the value jugement? This again is why you a jury.

In principle, what you say makes sense.

My disconnect is because I think I already know the value judgement the law will end up making.

What system would you propose would be better, I frankly wish that we didn't have a whole profession based the process and procedures of the court. It makes defending yourself almost impossible.

But the court has the burden to prove that the person is guilty of a crime, to 12 different people. You are required by law to be given a lawyer to assist in your case if you can't afford one.

That is a better shake than probably 75% of the world right there. Hell its better than you get in the military in the US.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact