It isnt Me
Tho i have been stduying law for the better part of my time in life recently, especially these few months where i have prepared for my exams, more and more i have realized within myself that perhaps the legal profession is not what i ought to want to practice.
Now, before i elborate further for the purposes of informining the people around me whom my education is concerned, let me explain in my own words how the "law" as we know (or rather as I know) exists today.
The law is largely statutory in nature, meaning there are provisions within statutes that we humans have to adhere to as we are bound. It doesnt matter what the circumstances are, rules are rules. But as some would argue, that the law is "dynamic" and its not written in stone as it used to be, hence the need for judges, juries and lawyers, to "argue" the facts based on the law. see, this is where the problem arises for an egotisticle maniac such as myself.
Im posting this with special regard to Criminal Law.
Criminal Law in Tasmania is governed by a code called The Criminal Code. Within this code, in a nutshell, contained within this code are strict provisions which state the "do"s and "dont"s. it is, to a great extent as some might argue, is very "well-established" and comprehensive. but is it?
To me, i am not ready to hear 700 pages of horse shit some judges can dish out on what seems to me, to be a very simple question. i am not ready to be "force-fed" a whole bunch of fucked up reasoning, writtin in the most vague, most disgustingly long winded, most ambiguious words writtin by some old fart.
somethings, from a laymen's perspective are blatantly obvious. as obvious as if you look at the sun you know its hot. yet the judges go on forever about in which situations that if you stand on the sun you wont get burnt.
(refer to 1 post before this)
This is the biggest problem im facing now, as a law student. Im not ready to accept the law as it is. well, let me rephrase that...
"im not ready to accept the whole hipocritic(god fuck my spelling) nature of the "law" as we know it today"
the notion of "Justice" existed in my own mind, preceeding what i have read and learnt prior to entering law school. there are somethings that are so deeply embedded in me with such vengeance i cannot seem to alter that "reality".
"the bitch is guilty, convict him." thats what i think the law should be, but sadly it isnt.
the courts, via 6 million and 1 pages of decisions came up with crap like the test subjective recklessness, then another 7 million pages of reasons why not to solely apply this test on an accused.
bullshit imo.
if, to an ordinary person, firing a rifle several times over someone's house and having alot of bullets entering a window, is NOT, i repeat is NOT TRYING TO MAKE SOME NOISE. and anyone, i mean ANYONE including Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee WILL run for cover in the face of that.
you can fuck what the accused has to say, you can fuck all the reasons, the only reason someone would do that, is because he is pissed and wants to break or kill something.
like how i want to fucking break this monitor infront of me and kick this fucking whirring CPU who wont STFU...
...but i didnt... i wouldnt infact because i know the people around me will call me a nutfuck, and make me pay for the things i broke. but if i knew i had a gun, and im fucking pissed, i wont go shooting someones house then later say i just wanted to make some noise.
you guys get what i mean?
(dont come fucking with me with the defense of insanity and s13 of the criminal code with the statements above because I WILL FUCK YOU UP)
theres too much angst, too much prejudice, too much racism, too much jump-the-gun logic in me, for me, to "effectively" practice law, and by "effectively" i mean the social construction of what is APPROPRIATE to the public, note: APPROPROATE, NOT RIGHT.
Law... It Isnt me...
Now, before i elborate further for the purposes of informining the people around me whom my education is concerned, let me explain in my own words how the "law" as we know (or rather as I know) exists today.
The law is largely statutory in nature, meaning there are provisions within statutes that we humans have to adhere to as we are bound. It doesnt matter what the circumstances are, rules are rules. But as some would argue, that the law is "dynamic" and its not written in stone as it used to be, hence the need for judges, juries and lawyers, to "argue" the facts based on the law. see, this is where the problem arises for an egotisticle maniac such as myself.
Im posting this with special regard to Criminal Law.
Criminal Law in Tasmania is governed by a code called The Criminal Code. Within this code, in a nutshell, contained within this code are strict provisions which state the "do"s and "dont"s. it is, to a great extent as some might argue, is very "well-established" and comprehensive. but is it?
To me, i am not ready to hear 700 pages of horse shit some judges can dish out on what seems to me, to be a very simple question. i am not ready to be "force-fed" a whole bunch of fucked up reasoning, writtin in the most vague, most disgustingly long winded, most ambiguious words writtin by some old fart.
somethings, from a laymen's perspective are blatantly obvious. as obvious as if you look at the sun you know its hot. yet the judges go on forever about in which situations that if you stand on the sun you wont get burnt.
(refer to 1 post before this)
This is the biggest problem im facing now, as a law student. Im not ready to accept the law as it is. well, let me rephrase that...
"im not ready to accept the whole hipocritic(god fuck my spelling) nature of the "law" as we know it today"
the notion of "Justice" existed in my own mind, preceeding what i have read and learnt prior to entering law school. there are somethings that are so deeply embedded in me with such vengeance i cannot seem to alter that "reality".
"the bitch is guilty, convict him." thats what i think the law should be, but sadly it isnt.
the courts, via 6 million and 1 pages of decisions came up with crap like the test subjective recklessness, then another 7 million pages of reasons why not to solely apply this test on an accused.
bullshit imo.
if, to an ordinary person, firing a rifle several times over someone's house and having alot of bullets entering a window, is NOT, i repeat is NOT TRYING TO MAKE SOME NOISE. and anyone, i mean ANYONE including Chuck Norris or Bruce Lee WILL run for cover in the face of that.
you can fuck what the accused has to say, you can fuck all the reasons, the only reason someone would do that, is because he is pissed and wants to break or kill something.
like how i want to fucking break this monitor infront of me and kick this fucking whirring CPU who wont STFU...
...but i didnt... i wouldnt infact because i know the people around me will call me a nutfuck, and make me pay for the things i broke. but if i knew i had a gun, and im fucking pissed, i wont go shooting someones house then later say i just wanted to make some noise.
you guys get what i mean?
(dont come fucking with me with the defense of insanity and s13 of the criminal code with the statements above because I WILL FUCK YOU UP)
theres too much angst, too much prejudice, too much racism, too much jump-the-gun logic in me, for me, to "effectively" practice law, and by "effectively" i mean the social construction of what is APPROPRIATE to the public, note: APPROPROATE, NOT RIGHT.
Law... It Isnt me...
posted by Killl_Roy at 10:14 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home