Is there a distinction made between judicial laws and ethics?
It seems that sometimes, something can be legally okay but appears unethical. I think this is the whole basis of the term "legal loophole". Legal loopholes are those weird things that are correct and admissible in a court of law even though they seem incorrect and inadmissible to the general public.
Some examples:
Example #1:
"The event happened in the city of Jervis Bay in Australia, which is notable because it's an annexed part of federal land so that our capital territory can have an active port.
My professor's client had gotten into a fight on the beach and, in knee deep water, proceeded to beat the [blank] out of the guy he was fighting.
Assault charges were laid and it went to court.
My professor managed to find that, at the time, the delineation of the federal land around Jervis bay ended at the high water mark.
Also, at that time, the delineation of the coastal region belonging to the state ended at the low water mark.
He managed to show that, because the crime had happened in between these two points, neither the state or federal court had jurisdiction to try the client, and he got off."
Example #2:
"if you have knowledge that the loan company is coming to repossess your car, parking it on the neighbors property will most likely not allow us to proceed.
Contracts don't allow us to repossess from different addresses on the warrant, cars parked at the neighbors, we can't touch it."
It seems obviously unethical to beat up some guy and face no repercussions, yet that seems to be the way the judicial system is set up at times.
Thoughts?
Link
It seems that sometimes, something can be legally okay but appears unethical. I think this is the whole basis of the term "legal loophole". Legal loopholes are those weird things that are correct and admissible in a court of law even though they seem incorrect and inadmissible to the general public.
Some examples:
Example #1:
"The event happened in the city of Jervis Bay in Australia, which is notable because it's an annexed part of federal land so that our capital territory can have an active port.
My professor's client had gotten into a fight on the beach and, in knee deep water, proceeded to beat the [blank] out of the guy he was fighting.
Assault charges were laid and it went to court.
My professor managed to find that, at the time, the delineation of the federal land around Jervis bay ended at the high water mark.
Also, at that time, the delineation of the coastal region belonging to the state ended at the low water mark.
He managed to show that, because the crime had happened in between these two points, neither the state or federal court had jurisdiction to try the client, and he got off."
Example #2:
"if you have knowledge that the loan company is coming to repossess your car, parking it on the neighbors property will most likely not allow us to proceed.
Contracts don't allow us to repossess from different addresses on the warrant, cars parked at the neighbors, we can't touch it."
It seems obviously unethical to beat up some guy and face no repercussions, yet that seems to be the way the judicial system is set up at times.
Thoughts?
Link