Cork city has gone to the dogs.

The question you should ask yourself here is why was justice not dispensed, or whose fault is it that justice was not reached?

The courts were set up based on structures to provide justice, however if there are bad actors (in many cases the police) involved outside the control of the courts than why would you blame the courts for following the same set of procedures that convict guilty people on a regular basis.

Many miscarriages of justice come down to police corruption, planting of evidence, coercing confessions out of people etc. Every system is open to manipulation and these are always related to human flaws as opposed to the system itself.

If your whole point is that the courts can get it wrong than I doubt anyone disagrees with you, if your point is courts are only there to fulfil a role as a legal construct and not to dispense justice then that is pretty dumb.

Why do you think bad actors are confined to the police? Why indeed do laws need to be changed? Is it to administer a different type of justice or is it a recognition that some laws don't always lead to just outcomes.

My point isn't that courts are legal constructs designed not to dispense justice, and to think it was is a dumb interpretation of the statement that "Courts of Law aren't always courts of justice".

Nobody ever said, or even implied, that the courts were designed to deny justice, but the fact remains that there are occasions where they don't give justice while still remaining within the law. And to deny that fact, or to pretend that only criminals would suggest it, is risible.
 
Why do you think bad actors are confined to the police? Why indeed do laws need to be changed? Is it to administer a different type of justice or is it a recognition that some laws don't always lead to just outcomes.

My point isn't that courts are legal constructs designed not to dispense justice, and to think it was is a dumb interpretation of the statement that "Courts of Law aren't always courts of justice".

Nobody ever said, or even implied, that the courts were designed to deny justice, but the fact remains that there are occasions where they don't give justice while still remaining within the law. And to deny that fact, or to pretend that only criminals would suggest it, is risible.
If a case is overturned on appeal ( like the Birmingham 6) or by a subsequent tribunal ( like stardust) then that original court was not within the law, nor was it just. The terms are interchangeable.

Also, even if that was the point you were trying to make, repeating ' a court of law, not a court of justice' doesn't mean that.
 
A Shinnerbot complaining about the court system in Ireland :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO: :ROFLMAO:

main-qimg-b4239ab59234c3effddf69b215beab2d


What a pitiful cunt.
 
If a case is overturned on appeal ( like the Birmingham 6) or by a subsequent tribunal ( like stardust) then that original court was not within the law, nor was it just. The terms are interchangeable.

Also, even if that was the point you were trying to make, repeating ' a court of law, not a court of justice' doesn't mean that.

Justice certainly wasn't served with the Birmingham 6 or Stardust or hundreds of more cases but the original court WERE acting within the law at the time - or are you now really trying to claim that the original courts were acting outside of the law???? Who would you blame for allowing a court of law act outside of the law of the land?

Retrospection decades on of "oh on appeal we find that justice wasn't served all those decades ago by the legal decision handed down by the court so we'll introduce the pretence now that they weren't really acting within the law back then" is clutching at straws.

And I never said that courts of law don't administer justice, I said courts of law don't always administer justice. Maybe that's too subtle for you to grasp, or just that you don't want to admit it.
 
Justice certainly wasn't served with the Birmingham 6 or Stardust or hundreds of more cases but the original court WERE acting within the law at the time - or are you now really trying to claim that the original courts were acting outside of the law???? Who would you blame for allowing a court of law act outside of the law of the land?

Retrospection decades on of "oh on appeal we find that justice wasn't served all those decades ago by the legal decision handed down by the court so we'll introduce the pretence now that they weren't really acting within the law back then" is clutching at straws.

And I never said that courts of law don't administer justice, I said courts of law don't always administer justice. Maybe that's too subtle for you to grasp, or just that you don't want to admit it.
You might as well say courts of law don't always administer law.

There isn't anything "subtle" in what you're saying, it's just a rubbish distinction.
 
You might as well say courts of law don't always administer law.

There isn't anything "subtle" in what you're saying, it's just a rubbish distinction.

You're the only one saying that.

I said courts of law don't always administer justice. There is a difference between Law, and Justice. That you still can't see that speaks volumes.
 
You're the only one saying that.

I said courts of law don't always administer justice. There is a difference between Law, and Justice. That you still can't see that speaks volumes.
For the millionth time, the terms court of law and court of justice are interchangeable. This is a matter of fact, not opinion.

You are objectively, factually wrong.

I have explained this to you. Other people have explained it to you ( in case the issue is just that you can't bear to be correctly by me. Again.).
 
EVENT GUIDE - HIGHLIGHT
Twig (15a)
Triskel Arts Centre, Tobin St.

2nd Jul 2024 @ 8:15 pm
More info..

Rome, Open City (NC)

Triskel Arts Centre, Today @ 6pm

More events ▼
Top