No
No
But also I’m Brazilian. “The law is just a suggestion” is ingrained into the fundamental flesh of our culture. People who are sticklers for the law are setup and punchline all in one here.
lol
Removed by mod
I am an anarchist. Make your inferences as to how that answers your questions from there.
No
No
Am Australian.
I live in Germany. A court just fined a politician for criticising the conservative party (CDU) because it was working together with the fascist party (AfD). The CDU sued him and won. Not the first time a judge supported the right wing either.
That’s all you need to know, really.
I had heard that they were going to ban the afd (some court?) . Is that not happening?
No, it’s not. The hurdles to ban a political party in Germany are extremely high. Only three institutions can request that the Bundesverfassungsgericht (similar: supreme court) rules on a party’s compatibility with the liberal-democratic basic order. The government, the Bundestag (cf. House of Representatives), or the Bundesrat (cf. Senate). There’s no majority for such a process in either of these chambers or the Government. One of the main reasons is the fear that the court will not rule to ban the AfD and that the court proceedings would just damage the democratic parties and the constitutional order.
I can’t say I blame them. That this process to ban the AfD would be successful is not very likely. The decision would have to be made by the court with a 2/3 majority and several points need to be proven:
They have to be unconstitutional: “Parties which, by their objectives or the behavior of their supporters, aim to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order or to endanger the existence of the Federal Republic of Germany are unconstitutional.”
However, simply being unconstitutional is not enough: “Rather, there must be an actively combative, aggressive attitude toward the existing order. This attitude must systematically undermine its functioning and, in the process, seek to eliminate it itself.” (From the proceedings of the ban of the communist party)
In addition, the party must intend to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order. Elimination means “the abolition of at least one of the essential elements of the free democratic basic order or its replacement by another constitutional order or another system of government”.
Furthermore, they also need to have the means to be able to reach that goal.
Because of these high hurdles, only two such bans were successful in the Federal Republic of Germany. In the 50s, a Nazi Party and the Communist Party were banned. No party was sussessfully banned since then.
In addition, the party must intend to impair or eliminate the free democratic basic order. Elimination means “the abolition of at least one of the essential elements of the free democratic basic order or its replacement by another constitutional order or another system of government”.
Seems like a catch 22. They would need the party to be in power and to try and dismantle the democratic elements before they get a ban. But wouldn’t it be too late then? Because if they’re in power, what’s stopping them from reducing the courts to puppet shows? (like arguably what’s slowly happening in the US) or what happened in the 1940s.
From what I can tell (I am an outsider), the party’s manifesto seems to aim to do exactly that. Is that not a reasonable enough reason? I know they aren’t outright nazis themselves, but I’ve heard whispers and about connections to those who are openly nazis themselves. Like elon Musk who is openly a nazi.
Are the courts confident the Afd won’t pull a Nazi third reich? I wonder if the checks and balances in germany are stronger than those in other countries. In the end, it will only matter to whom the police listens to.
Banning them seems like a question of political will, instead of having the right procedure in place.
Absolutely. The AfD is careful to walk the line. What they want according to their program is abhorrent and stupid but not illegal. That’s why no party was banned since the 50s, parties know what they can and can’t state publicly.
There are many things wrong with the laws in the US. I’m not even sure where I’d start
But the other bigger problem is enforcement. Some people do a murder and get a nationwide search. Others the victims family get a “lol can’t help you”.
Recommend reading “the new Jim Crow” for one look at one part of this.
I became anti-death penalty because the real world data of how it has been applied clearly shows the state does not apply it evenly to all. It disproportional is applied to people of color. Moreover, the state has shown it doesn’t convict evenly, so not only can people be wrongfully convicted at a higher rate for some, but they can even be put to death by the state. So innocent people are being wrongfully convicted and even put to death. Until we, as a society, can apply laws and punishments evenly, we cannot have laws and punishments only for some. So the death penalty should be off the table.
Fiscally, the death penalty is also more expensive to enforce than life in prison. So ethically or fiscally, the death penalty should be abolished.
Reasonably in line? Yes
Are there some exceptions that should be changed? Also yes
Are you satisfied overall with the decisions made by your courts?
Yes, nothing is ever going to be perfect, but we get it right enough that I’m fine with it.
For a layperson I have a very good knowledge of my country’s laws, but there are more laws I don’t know than I do know, so I can’t really answer this question. The laws I know I understand, and thus they seem reasonable enough for me.
How they are enforced though… With high burden of proof comes low rates of convictions, for better and worse. I’m privileged enough that the system mostly works in my favour so can’t really speak on that either, as I lack nuanced experiences.
Personally I’m more happy to not have been sentenced for any of my own potential infractions, than I am pissed to have my offenders/attackers never even questioned by police. I can get justice in other ways than through criminal law anyway.
Any justice system is well adapted to how society was in the near past.
There could be improvements, a major overhaul of the sentencing scale for example. Over the years there have been increased sentences for some crimes but not others which can create funny technicalities that if you threaten someone with a weapon you get a lesser sentence than just handling an illegal weapon.
Over all it’s good, not excellent.
I don’t like the suppression of protests in Switzerland. They are allowed if they don’t disturb the city life too much, but if they do they get disbanded by police with illegal brutality and then prosecuted and judged harshly by judges who clearly want to achieve an atmosphere of fear.
So that’s both executive and judicative that take laws in their own hands to silence protests.
And then our political finance laws are just a joke, where it’s easy to donate anonymously to parties or lobby groups to overwhelm political counterparts.
Sure, we’re a direct democracy, but capital and the establishment has found ways to stay in control. Still better than most other countries, but I still find things to complain.
Yes, mostly. There are some improvements that could be done, but I don’t think any fundamental reforms are needed.
So you would say that the law usually corresponds to what you perceive as justice?
To go into some more details-
Good: Serious crimes are punished - I don’t expect anyone to get away with murder. There are no political crimes, you won’t get imprisoned for being against the government. Minimal religious influence on laws.
Bad: Small crimes like theft is are not treated consistently. Unlike some who call for harsher penalties I disagree. I think the penalties are appropriate but a lot of cases go ignored. If every case was processed even with a metaphorical slap on the wrist, there would basically be no theft.
To be seen: Command responsibility. Recently there was a case where a government official’s inaction during a natural disaster resulted in people dying. Some would have died anyway but it could have been minimized if they acted quickly. The trial is in progress, we’ll see what comes of it, but the laws exist.That sounds pretty reasonable, may I ask which country you live in? Or in which region of the world?
Spain
Pretty much
I’d like to see a bigger clamping down on corruption, but overall, Australia is pretty good
I guess in theory most laws in Canada make sense. Court process is slow though. I think drugs should be decriminalized
Few disappointments with laws themselves, but the courts are completely fucked. Especially now.
