http://www.oikeus.fi/8854.htmThe courts exercise judicial power, that is, they decide individual cases. The courts are independent: They are bound only by the law in force.
cors187 wrote:he documents themselves are evolving according to case-law comments within legal publications and successive changes made to the consulted documents
There is a system for those cases where also the father is unit to be a parent or never was a parent in social terms. Not a perfect system, but it exists.1. Female immigrant coming here.
2. having a baby.
3. then her and the child are abandoned(fatherless) to the welfare state.
i think it a genuine problem that needs addressing.
Original post was several months ago. I think what could be reasonably said about it at the time was said then.Cory wrote:OMG boys. Sometimes silence speaks louder. Please refrain from slinging immature insults at one another. As usual, you've killed the interest of others to discuss the topic for the sake of actually helping someone out.
Thats when you get it turned over by the appeals court. The law is the same for everyone, there is no non-standard rulings - thats the whole idea of having a law in the first place.Ok so i am trying say that even though the legislation is standard, it can take a non standard ruling to over ride standard rules.(no one can say that is not true about any law court)
If you figure out there is a "problem" a judge has F*all to do with any change in law or practice involved. The social welfare and immigration authorities might find there is an issue, they will talk to the Ministry of the Interior, the ministry of the Interior forms a proposal to certain laws, it goes to the law commission to rotate... at some point it might come to the judicial commission for an opinion wheteher there is an issue with the constitution... and in no part does any judge put his fingers in the pie.1. Female immigrant coming here.
2. having a baby.
3. then her and the child are abandoned(fatherless) to the welfare state.
i think it a genuine problem that needs addressing.
But the case law comments and other references are still valid and are used as a reference for the legislators to add or take away from the existing legislation.Upphew wrote:http://www.oikeus.fi/8854.htmThe courts exercise judicial power, that is, they decide individual cases. The courts are independent: They are bound only by the law in force.
So if court decides something under some law. Then the next case falling under the same law isn't bound by the decision made in earlier case. And the law can't be changed by courts. Laws are amended by parliament, not courts.
The changes are decided by professional politicians?The changes and legal advises are given according to the streaming of current issues and findings in particular courts.The evidence as a whole is then interpreted and the consulting documents are given to professional politicians.Thats exactly what i have said and its true, or else the consulting documents are partial to a portion of the people they are intended for!Rip wrote:cors187 wrote:he documents themselves are evolving according to case-law comments within legal publications and successive changes made to the consulted documents
"Those successive changes made to the consulted documents" are laws passed by the members of the parliament (and in less important cases updated government degrees). There are few cases when decision of the supreme court has made the parliament to pass a new law (or amendment to an old one) to counter that decision, but that is by far not the predominant reason why changes to the laws are made.
1. Female immigrant coming here.
2. having a baby.
3. then her and the child are abandoned(fatherless) to the welfare state.
i think it a genuine problem that needs addressing.
But the Russian owned Finland and gave it to Finland which started new legislation.There's legislation on refugees , before Finland had refugees its policy were partial.The more refugees are here the more important and specific the policies need to be.There is a system for those cases where also the father is unit to be a parent or never was a parent in social terms. Not a perfect system, but it exists.
Are you saying there is no room in any FINNISH LAW COURT that can offer new evidence contrary to legislation?????????????Pursuivant wrote:Thats when you get it turned over by the appeals court. The law is the same for everyone, there is no non-standard rulings - thats the whole idea of having a law in the first place.Ok so i am trying say that even though the legislation is standard, it can take a non standard ruling to over ride standard rules.(no one can say that is not true about any law court)
I dont know why you added this statement, answer the first question and then this statement wasn't worth writing.Apparently, you are a retard, so please take note: Parliament makes and amends the laws, the president signs them. The courts interpret the laws - they do not change, alter nor make non-standard decisions, in cases of interpretation they try and make the standard, the precedent, that all courts can follow. Hence not all cases are allowed to the higher court from the appeals.
I believe you left the critical part out , the act of submitting a document to any consultant Documents that may reach the legislators table has been effectively "judged" as admissible.1. Female immigrant coming here.
2. having a baby.
3. then her and the child are abandoned(fatherless) to the welfare state.
i think it a genuine problem that needs addressing.
If you figure out there is a "problem" a judge has F*all to do with any change in law or practice involved. The social welfare and immigration authorities might find there is an issue, they will talk to the Ministry of the Interior, the ministry of the Interior forms a proposal to certain laws, it goes to the law commission to rotate... at some point it might come to the judicial commission for an opinion wheteher there is an issue with the constitution... and in no part does any judge put his fingers in the pie..
Court decisions fleshing out the details may be part of the background information regarding the current state of the affairs related to the proposed new law, but they are rarely even close to being the dominant factor.cors187 wrote:The changes are decided by professional politicians?The changes and legal advises are given according to the streaming of current issues and findings in particular courts.
in addition to the fact (I'm sure, despite my own shortcomings) that the sentence above has bad enough problems in grammar to make it hard to decipher it seems that you're imagining things again. What new legislation?But the Russian owned Finland and gave it to Finland which started new legislation.There is a system for those cases where also the father is unit to be a parent or never was a parent in social terms. Not a perfect system, but it exists.
That it would be more important to have reasonable legislation relating to asylum seekers when there is lot of them than when there is none or very few is true but not really relevant to the discussion.There's legislation on refugees , before Finland had refugees its policy were partial.The more refugees are here the more important and specific the policies need to be.
Could you try to avoid philosophical gibberish without no clear meaning?Existence is not a standard statement when it comes to LAW.
How does it prove that?NO the bulk of FINNISH updated amendments proves that inadequate documentation is available even now!
That would be breaking the Judge's oath. Judges don't judge how they like, they judge how the law says.cors187 wrote:Are you saying there is no room in any FINNISH LAW COURT that can offer new evidence contrary to legislation?????????????
I'd say rarely, if at all. That would create endless loop, as the highest court usually makes decisions not only how the law is worded, but also what is said in all the memorandums that preceded the law.cors187 wrote:But the case law comments and other references are still valid and are used as a reference for the legislators to add or take away from the existing legislation.
Tell me its not true?
The bulk of legislation created in 1918, the example of (whatever political system) gave Finland liberty in a sense is just a big example of people living in a system that needed legislation.It was just a prime example of how legislation works,.Rip wrote:
in addition to the fact (I'm sure, despite my own shortcomings) that the sentence above has bad enough problems in grammar to make it hard to decipher it seems that you're imagining things again. What new legislation?But the Russian owned Finland and gave it to Finland which started new legislation.
Not so fast, legislation does evolve due to many reasons , most legislation amendments should be for the betterment of those with in the scope?Therefore unless the legislators have their focus in the scope, they can and will miss something important.The bigger the scope the more amendments.Take the 1982 Social welfare act, its been edited (8.8.12).That it would be more important to have reasonable legislation relating to asylum seekers when there is lot of them than when there is none or very few is true but not really relevant to the discussion.There's legislation on refugees , before Finland had refugees its policy were partial.The more refugees are here the more important and specific the policies need to be.
It means that just by having an existing policy doesn't prove that its even good or that its current or defined.We all know this argument isnt new.Those statute laws were here before the immigrant mother.Could you try to avoid philosophical gibberish without no clear meaning?Existence is not a standard statement when it comes to LAW.
Im saying that if legislators update documentation ,then those documents were found to be inadequate ,thats why they are updated.How does it prove that?NO the bulk of FINNISH updated amendments proves that inadequate documentation is available even now!
And how is this supposed to be relevant reply to my comment:cors187 wrote: The bulk of legislation created in 1918, the example of (whatever political system) gave Finland liberty in a sense is just a big example of people living in a system that needed legislation.It was just a prime example of how legislation works,.
There is a system for those cases where also the father is unit to be a parent or never was a parent in social terms. Not a perfect system, but it exists.
I'd hope the legislation regarding asylum seekers is NOT made purely for the "betterment" of asylum seekers. Irrespective of that, how again is this relevant with your idea how legislation is made by courts?cors187 wrote:Not so fast, legislation does evolve due to many reasons , most legislation amendments should be for the betterment of those with in the scope?rip wrote: That it would be more important to have reasonable legislation relating to asylum seekers when there is lot of them than when there is none or very few is true but not really relevant to the discussion.
If there is a policy it means it is somehow currently defined. Good or bad can be a point of view.cors187 wrote:It means that just by having an existing policy doesn't prove that its even good or that its current or defined.rip wrote:Could you try to avoid philosophical gibberish without no clear meaning?Existence is not a standard statement when it comes to LAW.
Usually one does not refer to laws as "documentation". Is it intentional on your behalf to make yourself hard to understand at every level? Yes, laws are occasionally changed either because previously unforeseen circumstances or changing attitudes. Nobody would deny it and probably only you would consider it relevant here.cors187 wrote:Im saying that if legislators update documentation ,then those documents were found to be inadequate ,thats why they are updated.rip wrote:How does it prove that?NO the bulk of FINNISH updated amendments proves that inadequate documentation is available even now!
I think your missing the point, if evidence in any court suggest that the legislation is partial or in consistent,then i think a judge has the right to say"i think the legislation is partial in this case, therefore i recommend ............ , or he can say" Under current legislation i do not have the Authority in this court to change the course due to the evidence, therefore i recommend............, or he can say" Those finding due to evidence are not admissible in this court, therefore seek further legal council elsewhere.Upphew wrote:That would be breaking the Judge's oath. Judges don't judge how they like, they judge how the law says.cors187 wrote:Are you saying there is no room in any FINNISH LAW COURT that can offer new evidence contrary to legislation?????????????
"Minä N.N. lupaan ja vannon kaikkivaltiaan ja kaikkitietävän Jumalan edessä, että minä parhaan ymmärrykseni ja omantuntoni mukaan kaikissa lainkäyttötehtävissä toimin oikeudenmukaisesti lakia noudattaen." (bolding mine)
http://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/1987/19871183
As an example against you remarks, do you think that Mrs hankosontie now dead husbands case might rarely be highlighted so that his example can not benefit the consulting documents that help the legislators make better conditions?I'd say rarely, if at all. That would create endless loop, as the highest court usually makes decisions not only how the law is worded, but also what is said in all the memorandums that preceded the law.cors187 wrote:But the case law comments and other references are still valid and are used as a reference for the legislators to add or take away from the existing legislation.
Tell me its not true?
are used as a reference[] , i guess the question i want a response to is if you think that they "are valid"?, whether or not they are used or presented as examples in a consulting document is up to the consultant.
Because having a legitimate way to express your condemnation and therefore the resultant acts produce the "legal documents of your condemnation".rip wrote: Irrespective of that, how again is this relevant with your idea how legislation is made by courts?
http://www.finlex.fi/en/laki/kaannokset/uusimmat/ They are all considered individual documents,don't play that card.rip wrote: Usually one does not refer to laws as "documentation". Is it intentional on your behalf to make yourself hard to understand at every level? Yes, laws are occasionally changed either because previously unforeseen circumstances or changing attitudes. Nobody would deny it and probably only you would consider it relevant here.
No, it is not the task of Finnish judges to legislate (or to campaign for legislative changes). This is not a Common law system. They may need to sometimes decide what are relevant laws related to the case and which of them to follow and how are they to interpreted in a particular case, but their business is not to decide against the law.cors187 wrote:I think your missing the point, if evidence in any court suggest that the legislation is partial or in consistent,then i think a judge has the right to say"i think the legislation is partial in this case, therefore i recommend ............ , or he can say" Under current legislation i do not have the Authority in this court to change the course due to the evidence, therefore i recommend............, or he can say"
(I have no idea what you tired to say)Those finding due to evidence are not admissible in this court, therefore seek further legal council elsewhere.
He tried to answer it as good as he could (with a "no") considering the original question was nonsensicalYou didnt even answer the question!
Are you trying to refer to some actual case? The background material witch describe the status quo for new legislation may make references how related cases have been handled in the courts. Its rare that these are an important part.do you think that Mrs hankosontie now dead husbands case might rarely be highlighted so that his example can not benefit the consulting documents that help the legislators make better conditions?
Most of the time you'd expect the relevant authorities city or national (traffic planning, not the courts) to notice a particularly dangerous crossing. They keep statistics after all. If that does not work you can try to make fuss about it through media or politicians. You do not try legislate through useless court cases.cors187 wrote: How else is a very bad designed intersection changed to a better one if every time an accident happened , the evidence was not reported and verified as proof of a problem.
You can contest the fine. It is useless though, if it is clear that you violated the law. (Even if better design of the intersection could have helped, except for extremely rare case where one could consider the design to be criminally negligent (can't remember a vsingle case related to road traffic)).What you guys are saying is that the court case of receiving the "on the spot fine" at the accident can not be heard in another court as legislation already exists that covers all factors.
No it does not. It may get fixed, but not because of court cases where the result is known in beforehand. There will be for example aboard of inquiry for all deadly traffic accidents even if the case is not contested or there is nobody alive to charge. Statistics (including location) are collected also regarding other accidents. People who design roads take note of them.You may loose the case , but the intersection may get fixed.
Only those immigrants that make no sense.You finnish people just hate to think that immigrants can make you country better than you can dont you?
In English please...The only thing that's not documented is how a judge might interpret new evidence that makes a simple ruling more complicated.Which everyone else thinks it doesn't exist,lol
