SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Everyone is planning to return to the moon. At least 10 missions by half a dozen nations are scheduled before the end of 2021, and that's only the beginning.
Even though there are international treaties governing outer space, ambiguity remains about how individuals, nations and corporations can use lunar resources.
In all of this, the moon is seen as an inert object with no value in its own right.
But should we treat this celestial object, which has been part of the culture of every hominin for millions of years, as just another resource?
[...] As a thought experiment in how we might regulate lunar exploitation, some have asked whether the moon should be granted legal personhood, which would give it the right to enter into contracts, own property, and sue other persons.
Legal personhood is already extended to many non-human entities: certain rivers, deities in some parts of India, and corporations worldwide. Environmental features can't speak for themselves, so trustees are appointed to act on their behalf, as is the case for the Whanganui River in New Zealand. One proposal is to apply the New Zealand model to the moon.
[...] Can we support the legal concept of personhood for the moon with actual features of personhood?
Journal Reference:
Eytan Tepper, Christopher Whitehead. Moon, Inc.: The New Zealand Model of Granting Legal Personality to Natural Resources Applied to Space, New Space (DOI: 10.1089/space.2018.0025)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday September 03 2020, @06:37PM (1 child)
If the confession had been thrown out, that's an indication that the cops did something they shouldn't have when they got the confession (e.g. beat them until they confessed, denied them legal counsel, or just flat-out faked it). That doesn't mean the guy is not guilty, but it means that that evidence was in fact something you should not have taken into account, and from the defense lawyer's point of view especially that confession might as well not have existed.
And, as I said, you have to prove that the defense lawyer actually lied. I agree that's a tough standard to meet, but it means lawyers have to be careful if they want to keep their law practice afloat.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Friday September 04 2020, @11:36PM
She gave the confession voluntarily, but it was tossed because it was argued that she didn't understand the warnings she was given at the start of her confession.
The police acted in good faith, and given that she had been through several years off local education, and confessed in the local language without an interpreter, it being tossed was more likely to deprive the defence of a chance to muddy the waters by questioning the validity of the confession . So the defence screwed up in successfully arguing that it should have been tossed. Because when the facts are against you, pound on the law, when you law is against you, pound on the fact, and when both are against you pound on the table.
So the defence pounded on the table. They knew their client had admitted to the killing. They knew the facts were against her. They knew the law was against her. So they outright lied, trying to blame someone else; first an unknown intruder, then the husband of the victim. They must have thought it was dramatic flourishing with "the great reveal of the true killer ", but it was a farce. Made worse by the supposed re-enactment.
But lawyers aren't under oath. So expect lies. Cops lie under oath because they are extremely biased. They have to support whatever cock-and-bull story another cop gave, they need a good conviction rate to advance their career, and they often are not psychologically fit for the job.
The guilty person has a huge motivation to lie. It's just the innocent person who's going to come across as less than truthful because they get flustered by the whole process and don't understand everyone else's motives for distorting the truth.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.