Is Moffat simply lazy or does he suck?

[bilateralrope]

if I ever have reasons to deal with the German legal system I am DEFINITELY hiring a lawyer because otherwise I'll just get myself into a lot of trouble.

Are there any legal systems where not hiring a lawyer could be considered a good idea ?

[Jaepheth]

Are there any legal systems where not hiring a lawyer could be considered a good idea ?

If memory serves, in Japan if you get as far as a trial it's best to just plead guilty, put yourself at the mercy of the court, and act as ashamed as possible while doing so. (>99% conviction rate)

[Ralin]

if I ever have reasons to deal with the German legal system I am DEFINITELY hiring a lawyer because otherwise I'll just get myself into a lot of trouble.

Are there any legal systems where not hiring a lawyer could be considered a good idea ?

My guess would be that she's thinking about Small Claims Court.

[Tribble]

Can you elaborate that? I always thought the English common law system was way more difficult because it has multiple sources of law. Although I have only a superficial knowledge of the English system.

Here is a brief article describing the two systems: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/rob ... tions.html

Naturally this article is just a generalisation, and the answer to your question depends on which country you're asking, which area of law in that country you are referring to, and what you mean by "more difficult." May you elaborate a bit?

[Thanas]

if I ever have reasons to deal with the German legal system I am DEFINITELY hiring a lawyer because otherwise I'll just get myself into a lot of trouble.

Are there any legal systems where not hiring a lawyer could be considered a good idea ?

My guess would be that she's thinking about Small Claims Court.

But that also applies to Germany, you are only forced to get a lawyer if a certain amount of money is in dispute.

[Tribble]

Due to the adversarial nature of common-law having good legal representation is pretty much a must. Is a lawyer just as necessary under civil law?

[Thanas]

Due to the adversarial nature of common-law having good legal representation is pretty much a must. Is a lawyer just as necessary under civil law?

No, not for small claims really. But most people prefer one nonetheless due to having somebody experienced at their site which allows them to just sit there and let others handle the stress of being questioned by a judge.

[Broomstick]

- if I ever have reasons to deal with the German legal system I am DEFINITELY hiring a lawyer because otherwise I'll just get myself into a lot of trouble.

Can you elaborate that? I always thought the English common law system was way more difficult because it has multiple sources of law. Although I have only a superficial knowledge of the English system.

Perhaps (I don't feel qualified to make a definite statement regarding that question) but do keep in mind I have lived my entire life under a system based on English common law. That is all I know, all that I have experienced. The legal systems based on formal legal codes, like that of Justinian or Napoleon's French civil code, are alien to me. Although there are certain things in common (no stealing, no murder, etc.) there are places where there are immense gaps and differences. If I attempted to proceed in a German court with my American habits and assumptions at the very least I'd piss someone off (and it's never a good idea to piss off a judge), I certainly could make my situation worse due to ignorance.

The reverse could well apply for a German embroiled in the US system. The only possible advantage for such a German is that the US system is so publicized by our media in TV and movies that person might have some passing familiarity with certain common law/US law notions. Might. More likely, they'd have some false notions as promoted by Hollywood and, again, get themselves into trouble due to ignorance.

Then again, I hired a lawyer for the US legal system even when I didn't have to. I found it worthwhile to enlist expert help for a serious matter before it was strictly required. Likewise, I don't do my own automobile repairs or electrical wiring. I have some idea of the limits of my knowledge and know when to seek out more qualified minds.

[Welf]

Here is a brief article describing the two systems: http://www.law.berkeley.edu/library/rob ... tions.html

Naturally this article is just a generalisation, and the answer to your question depends on which country you're asking, which area of law in that country you are referring to, and what you mean by "more difficult." May you elaborate a bit?

I would point to your link, it explained a few things about common law that I knew only roughly As I understand it, if you go to court you need to search through every possible precedent and hope you find all. That means Blackstone's compilation from around 1750 plus 260 years of further development. And then you can only hope the judge will accept your precedents.
In Germany theoretically all you need is the law book, maybe a contract you signed and some high level court decisions to understand how certain concepts are used. That looks much more comprehensive. In one lecture I heard that German business contracts tend to have only 1/3 of the size of US contracts, because most concepts are already defined in laws that apply to everybody.

But I guess in the end the system you are used to is always easier. And while there is theoretically only the law and a contract relevant, there is also judge body of literature to explain everything.

Perhaps (I don't feel qualified to make a definite statement regarding that question) but do keep in mind I have lived my entire life under a system based on English common law. That is all I know, all that I have experienced. The legal systems based on formal legal codes, like that of Justinian or Napoleon's French civil code, are alien to me. Although there are certain things in common (no stealing, no murder, etc.) there are places where there are immense gaps and differences. If I attempted to proceed in a German court with my American habits and assumptions at the very least I'd piss someone off (and it's never a good idea to piss off a judge), I certainly could make my situation worse due to ignorance.

I'm pretty sure you would be confused in Germany. German law and jurisdiction is based on intent and the concept of what two parties without pressure would decide. The contract itself is only a way to prove.
There is an example from the 20s. Back then two traders made an deal to sell whale flesh. However, in the contract they incorrectly used the Danish word for shark flesh. Since shark flesh was cheaper than whale flesh the supplier wanted to deliver what was written in the contract and get the price that was written. The judges later decided that they had to deliver what they intended to agree on. For an American this probably sounds crazy since this ignores what is written in the contract, for an German this makes sense because he wants to rely on what was agreed on and meant. Of course you usually can't prove that you meant something else than what was written in contract, so there isn't much difference in legal practice.

And that pretty much sums up all I know about the legal system since I had only one lecture and hardly paid attention.

[Broomstick]

I would point to your link, it explained a few things about common law that I knew only roughly As I understand it, if you go to court you need to search through every possible precedent and hope you find all. That means Blackstone's compilation from around 1750 plus 260 years of further development. And then you can only hope the judge will accept your precedents.

In practice, the most recent precedents tend to be given more weight. In the US, courts are not obligated to consider the precedents prior to the formation of the Federal government. Certain rulings come up again and again as precedent, particularly those on the appellate or supreme court level where, the most recent precedent can invalidate lower court decisions and prior court decisions. Also, we don't have a purely common law system. Both the US and state constitutions can invalidate prior rulings and laws, and a certain amount of US law is actually codified.

The US is further complicated by the fact that we have 50 different States with slightly differing constitutions and law codes, including Louisiana which is NOT based on common law. Due to being originally a French colony Louisiana state law is based on the French civil code, not English common law, unlike the rest of the US. My understanding that this also occurs in Canada, with most of the nation running on English common law except Quebec, which has a system based on the French civil code for pretty much the same reason as Louisiana.

In Germany theoretically all you need is the law book, maybe a contract you signed and some high level court decisions to understand how certain concepts are used. That looks much more comprehensive. In one lecture I heard that German business contracts tend to have only 1/3 of the size of US contracts, because most concepts are already defined in laws that apply to everybody.

English also has a bizarre legal convention of using two words when one will do (and those two tend to be multisyllable). We don't say "you hit someone", we say you committed "assault and battery". We don't say "stop" we say "cease and desist". This goes back to when the Normans invaded England there were two languages in common use: Norman French for the rulers and Anglo-Saxon (or some variant) for the ruled. Those word pairs that occur over and over in English law are a remnant of that time, and invariably one of the words is derived from Norman French and the other from Anglo-Saxon. Use of both in tandem allowed both levels of society to understand contracts and proceedings, it was a form of making courts and law bilingual. A few generations later the languages where well on the way to blending together but the format persists. It also adds to the length of English legal documents considerably.

(As an additional trivia, "breaking and entering" as a term for robbing a house goes back to when most dwellings were wattle and daub, that is, wicker-work walls covered in a mud "plaster". House thieves would literally break through a wall and enter the house to rob it. Hence, "breaking and entering", a term still in legal use even for brick houses or steel and concrete high rises.)

But yes, the need to define things within a contract probably also adds to the length. I've seen legal contracts in English that do make specific reference to specific laws and statutes, but having to define agreements in detail is also a feature.

Perhaps (I don't feel qualified to make a definite statement regarding that question) but do keep in mind I have lived my entire life under a system based on English common law. That is all I know, all that I have experienced. The legal systems based on formal legal codes, like that of Justinian or Napoleon's French civil code, are alien to me. Although there are certain things in common (no stealing, no murder, etc.) there are places where there are immense gaps and differences. If I attempted to proceed in a German court with my American habits and assumptions at the very least I'd piss someone off (and it's never a good idea to piss off a judge), I certainly could make my situation worse due to ignorance.

I'm pretty sure you would be confused in Germany. German law and jurisdiction is based on intent and the concept of what two parties without pressure would decide. The contract itself is only a way to prove.

There is also room for intent in US law. There is something called the "reasonable person" standard, there is room for interpretation, and there can be a significant difference between when a person intends to do right but doesn't due to outside factors and when a person intends to cause harm.

For an extreme example, if you kill someone in the US how you are punished very much depends on your intent. If you kill someone accidentally the penalties are far, far less than if you set out with intent to kill and succeed.

For a less extreme example, when I had my dispute with my former employer and I went to the Labor Board (a form of arbitration) intent was not discussed and under that decision she was only obligated to pay me for the wages I had earned. Failure to pay the agreed upon sum, when it reached a judge, was then interpreted as intent to withhold wages illegally, hence why penalties were assessed and she walked out owing me seven times what she did when she entered the courtroom. I also want to point out that the employer/employee wage relationship in question is entirely ruled by a formal legal code in the US, not common law. There is no "employment contract" below the executive level because the relationship is spelled out in statute. When penalties were assessed specific laws were referenced in the court document.

Of course, I am certain there are still significant differences. In US small claims it would be the plaintiff and defendant asking questions and presenting evidence, or their respective lawyers. I gather in Germany if there was an equivalent case it would be the judge doing the questioning.

Likewise, juries are not universal under US law. No one has to have a jury trial. You have a right to one under criminal accusations, you do not have an obligation to be judged by a jury. People can and have waived having a jury to have a judge decide their case. And as for the Supreme Court of the US, there are no juries there, unless you want to consider the 9 judges to be the jury. Then again, when it comes to the SCotUS it's not so much a person on trial but a law on trial.

While I do understand the role of a lawyer under the US system I admit I'm still puzzled about them under an "inquisitional" system under a civil code. What is the role of a personal lawyer in such a system?

[Eternal_Freedom]

Here's a thought: if you sign a contract that refers to specific laws or Acts of Parliament and those laws or acts are later overturned or repealed, does that void the contract?

[Broomstick]

::: scratches head :::

Your reference to "Parliament" makes me think you're asking specifically about UK law. I can't answer for the UK, or really any Commonwealth nation, because the US and UK law do have significant differences. That said...

At least in the US you can not have a legal contract that violates a law. Such a contract is invalid. So, in the US, such circumstances as you describe (with "Congress" substituted for "Parliament") would indeed invalidate a contract from that point forward.

[Eternal_Freedom]

Yes, I meant UK law, but if that is the case in the US I suspect it's broadly similar over here.

[Tribble]

I can't say what happens in the USA and UK, but in Canada two legal terms can be referring to two separate but related charges.

For example, under tort law in Canada "Assault" and "Battery" mean two different things. "Assault" is an intentional act that causes an apprehension or fear of imminent harmful or offensive contact based on a defendant's present ability to do so. "Battery" is an intentional physical contact with a person without his or her consent that results in bodily harm or is offensive to a reasonable sense of dignity. Essentially the difference between the two is that it is possible to commit an assault without directly or indirectly touching the person, while battery must involve physical contact in some way. The reason why you usually see the two together is because that's how things often play out: the attacker first threatens to use force (assault) and then proceeds to make contact with the victim (battery).

Note that in a criminal context the attacker would only charged with assault (Canada has different levels of assault based on severity). Battery is only applicable in non-criminal lawsuits.

Also in Canada "Robbery" is "theft" + "assault." The interesting thing is that if you are charged with robbery and are acquitted at trial, you can still be convicted of either theft or assault. They are lesser offences that are automatically included with the Robbery charge.

[Welf]

I'm pretty sure you would be confused in Germany. German law and jurisdiction is based on intent and the concept of what two parties without pressure would decide. The contract itself is only a way to prove.

There is also room for intent in US law. There is something called the "reasonable person" standard, there is room for interpretation, and there can be a significant difference between when a person intends to do right but doesn't due to outside factors and when a person intends to cause harm.

For an extreme example, if you kill someone in the US how you are punished very much depends on your intent. If you kill someone accidentally the penalties are far, far less than if you set out with intent to kill and succeed.

For a less extreme example, when I had my dispute with my former employer and I went to the Labor Board (a form of arbitration) intent was not discussed and under that decision she was only obligated to pay me for the wages I had earned. Failure to pay the agreed upon sum, when it reached a judge, was then interpreted as intent to withhold wages illegally, hence why penalties were assessed and she walked out owing me seven times what she did when she entered the courtroom. I also want to point out that the employer/employee wage relationship in question is entirely ruled by a formal legal code in the US, not common law. There is no "employment contract" below the executive level because the relationship is spelled out in statute. When penalties were assessed specific laws were referenced in the court document.[/quote]

That would work the same way in Germany. Both legal systems may have different philosophies but the actual needs of legal practice probably let them converge.

Of course, I am certain there are still significant differences. In US small claims it would be the plaintiff and defendant asking questions and presenting evidence, or their respective lawyers. I gather in Germany if there was an equivalent case it would be the judge doing the questioning.

Likewise, juries are not universal under US law. No one has to have a jury trial. You have a right to one under criminal accusations, you do not have an obligation to be judged by a jury. People can and have waived having a jury to have a judge decide their case. And as for the Supreme Court of the US, there are no juries there, unless you want to consider the 9 judges to be the jury. Then again, when it comes to the SCotUS it's not so much a person on trial but a law on trial.

While I do understand the role of a lawyer under the US system I admit I'm still puzzled about them under an "inquisitional" system under a civil code. What is the role of a personal lawyer in such a system?

The roles are actually pretty similar. A lawyer gives legal advice, helps through the case and presents the arguments. In a private law trial the two lawyers will present their views as legal experts (which will be the views of their clients) and try to influence the judge's decision. The judge can accept the presented evidence and work with that, or actively ask for evidence. Usually they won't since they assume the lawyers will do their job and prepare the evidence. A judge I met on a vacation trip told me she once decided a case about a fence by taking all parties to the fence and looking at it. But that happened after the presented arguments weren't clear enough. In criminal law the judges tend to be more active and order the hearing of neutral experts to get additional evidence.

Here's a thought: if you sign a contract that refers to specific laws or Acts of Parliament and those laws or acts are later overturned or repealed, does that void the contract?

No idea how that works in common law, but here sometimes courts have to use laws from the Holy Roman Empire because old contracts and documents explicitly refer to that legal framework (or so I remember from that one lecture 10 years ago).

[madd0ct0r]

A nice dissection of Moffat's writing in Dr Who.

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainmen ... th/282690/

The problem was never with Smith’s performance. It was with Steven Moffat’s conception of the character.

Viewers got a succinct briefing on Moffat’s vision in the Season Four two-part episode he wrote, “Silence in the Library/Forest of the Dead,” in which Moffat’s creation River meets Tennant’s 10th Doctor. At one point, she turns into a mouthpiece for Moffat: While she thinks that the 10th Doctor is OK, “Now, my Doctor, I’ve seen whole armies turn and run away, and he’d just swagger off back to his TARDIS and open the doors with a snap of his fingers.”

[PeZook]

Is there any other countries in Europe that has a jury system?

Poland kinda sorta has.

First-circuit courts have a judge team composed of one professional judge and two civilian jurors from a corps that is elected in local electionsm, for a four-year term (in serious criminal cases the numbers are increased to two judges and three jurors).

The jurors have most of a judge's prerogatives and their vote during discussions if equivalent to that of a judge.

Higher circuit courts are presided exclusively by judges, though.

[Broomstick]

Hmm.... I don't think people used to a jury system would call those jurors, they sound a lot more like lay judges. Although that may be quibbling a bit over terms and translations.

[PeZook]

We call them jurors because they don't do this full time. But yeah, it's probably a translation thing.

[Alkaloid]

Having now watched the last two episodes of DW and Sherlock, I feel confident the answer is just that he sucks.

[Thanas]

Oh god, don't even get me started on the last two episodes. It is a sad day when the US has a better Sherlock Holmes show than the BBC.

[Alkaloid]

I was impressed he managed to make River Song into a character on Sherlock though. Man is committed.

[Tribble]

I thought the first episode was pretty good. I didn't mind having one episode dedicated to Sherlock's return rather than an overall mystery. The 2nd episode kinda sucked though.

And the important question for me still hasn't been answered. No, it's not how Sherlock managed to survive, he himself says that there's many ways he could have escaped.

What I want to know is what Sherlock had over Moriarty that prompted Moriarty to kill himself. Yes, Sherlock figured out that Moriarty could call off the snipers, but that wouldn't matter unless Sherlock also figured out a way to break Moriarty and make him call them off. Even Mycroft couldn't get info that Moriarty didn't want to reveal. But when Sherlock said "I may be on the side of angels but don't think for one second that I am one of them" Moriarty immediately figured out that Sherlock was his equal in deviousness and had found the way to make him call the snipers off. I wonder what that was?

My theory:

Moriarty's goal was to make Sherlock voluntarily jump off the building. This is why he didn't use his gun.
Moriarty threatened to kill Sherlock's friends if he didn't jump.
Morarity's mistake was that he revealed to Sherlock that he could call the snipers off. Sherlock realised that if Moriarty carried out the threat and killed his friends, he would no longer have any hold over him. A dead hostage is a useless hostage. It was essentially speaking a bluff, something which Moriarty apparently hadn't considered.
All Sherlock had to do now was call Moriarty's bluff. His speech was basically saying "I'm not jumping, what are you going to do about it?"

Moriarty was obsessed with bringing the "fairy tale" to the ending he wanted, and Sherlock had just figured a way out. The only way that Moriarty could "win" was if he removed himself from the equation, which is why he shot himself. The snipers could no longer be called off, and if Sherlock wanted his friends to live he would now have no choice but to jump.

Of course, I would prefer it if Moffat had told us what the speech and Moriarty's response was all about... but seeing as he didn't even confirm how Sherlock survived, I guess I'm asking for too much.

[ray245]

Well, at the least the final episode is worth the wait.