In R. v Brown, House of Lords, 1993, the court found that one cannot consent to violence against their person. Why then do we allow boxing or football? Why is consensual sado-masochism between consenting adults, wherein safety measures were taken, so different?
So many situations seem to proffer a hard line rule, but when one looks at all the ways the rule could be used, it becomes clear that it is really quite murky after all. As the professor said tonight, we ask the criminal law to do more than what it is really capable of doing well. Humans find such creative ways to harm each other and there are only so many ways the law can address that. Still I can think of ways I'd like to see it do a better job.
Coming from the viewpoint of a middle-aged law student, I see the law in a different light than I would have had I gone to law school fresh out of college. And I see its imperfections in a different light as well. From a theoretical perspective, it all works out in the long run but on a case by case basis there is so much injustice done in the name of the law. Sometimes one gets as much justice as one can afford, which negatively impacts the ones who have the least opportunity to control their own destinies.
I regret the lost time but I am glad for the perspective I have now.
No comments:
Post a Comment