The idea that no crime is committed until the court decides it is actually beyond horrible. For example, the idea that marital rape really isn't rape when the law says it isn't is, well pretty evil.
-
-
There's different levels of legal realism Like, there's the statutory level, and the argument over whether it makes sense to argue that something "objectively is" a crime (or "objectively should be" a crime, not quite the same thing) when the law clearly says it isn't
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
There's very few people who would say that the law as it is perfectly reflects the law as it should be (or there'd be no need for lawmakers)
1 reply 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Whether that means the law-as-it-should-be "exists" (and it's meaningful to say "It was a crime even though it was legal") is this philosophical thing
1 reply 0 retweets 11 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
What FnP is arguing, about legal realism on the case-by-case level -- objectively speaking there is no individual crime until you've been convicted of it -- is very disturbing to me on a different level
3 replies 0 retweets 12 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Like it's not like saying marital rape isn't rape because it's legal, that's an argument most of us are much more comfortable with having It's saying that if you *do* break the law but you *don't get caught* then "in reality no crime occurred"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
It's a very cynical POV, and it's one that is useful for certain purposes Like it's true that if in real life no one ever gets prosecuted for a crime then whatever it says on paper, that crime isn't really illegal then But that doesn't make that okay
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Like from the perspective of an ordinary person in the system if you actually believe that personally then why not just do whatever your power lets you get away with If our collective faith in the law as something that really exists doesn't matter then why even have a law
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
If nothing else if *judges and juries* believe this then nothing stops them from just being tyrants Juries can decide collectively that a white man murdering a Black man just isn't illegal via nullification without ever having to argue it
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
Donald Trump and all the "l'etat, c'est moi" actual tyrants throughout history have been big fans of this philosophy "When the President does it, it's not illegal"
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes
Anyway in this particular case MFnP is being a tremendous scumbag and nakedly arguing on behalf of power Her brand of legal realism being "The law says whatever the billionaire threatening everyone with bankruptcy through litigation says it is"
-
-
Replying to @arthur_affect @Eristae and
And she thinks this kind of thing is inspiring and hopeful and just because in this instance the billionaire has XX chromosomes This is how shallow their politics are
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.