# مواقف في ساحات العدالة

نعى اليم ...... سودانيز اون لاين دوت كم تحتسب الزميل عبد الله بولا فى رحمه الله
يا للفجيعة ............ عبدالله بولا
رحيل زميل المنبرالفنان التشكيلي عبدالله بولا له الرحمة
رحيل الإنسان الممتاز بولا فقد عظيم للوطن
 منتديات سودانيزاونلاين مكتبة الفساد ابحث اخبار و بيانات مواضيع توثيقية منبر الشعبية اراء حرة و مقالات
 News and Press Releases اتصل بنا Articles and Views English Forum ناس الزقازيق
 مرحبا Guest اخر زيارك لك: 18-12-2018, 04:54 PM الصفحة الرئيسية

 نسخة قابلة للطباعة من الموضوع   ارسل الموضوع لصديق   اقرا المشاركات فى صورة مستقيمة « | » اقرا احدث مداخلة فى هذا الموضوع »
Re: مواقف في ساحات العدالة (Re: فيصل محمد خليل)

استاذي الفحل يحيي عبد الكريم

 Quote: أخى شيقوق ..لو اعتبر القاضى وقتها بيئة وعادات المنطقة " البقارة المسيرية برجل الفولة" التى أتى منها المتهم والمجنى عليها لاعتبر ان استفزازا متراكماAccumulative Provocation

مفهوم الرجل العادي reasonable man هو المحك الذي يبين الكوك عند المخادة . لقد كنت من الداعين لضرورة ان يكون القاضي ملما بالبيئة والثقافة التي يطبق فيها العدالة ليتسنى له تطبيق نظرية الرجل العادي من منطلق علمه القضائي وألا يحتاج لبينة خبير لاثباتها سواء اكان ذلك على مستوى تطبيق القانون الجنائي او غيره من افرع القانون التي تقتضى الاحتكام الي هذا المفهوم .

لقد توغلت هذه النظرية في اغلب ال jurisdictions لتسمو بالعدالة الى السقف المرضي للوجدان السليم .

دعونى اخي يحيي اقتبس هذه العبارات عن مفهوم الرجل العادي في بريطانيا:-

The Laws of England place great weight on the Reasonable Man. They will not, and sometimes will say it is because they cannot, specify exactly what ought to be done in all circumstances, and will phrase their demands instead in terms of what a reasonable man would in the circumstances do. So too juries are directed to bring in a verdict of Guilty only if the charge is proved beyond reasonable doubt, without there being any account offered of what exactly a reasonable doubt is. It is an old tradition. Plato, Aristotle and St. Paul all insisted on the inability of the letter of the law to exhaust the full content of its spirit, and Aristotle defines a key term of his moral philosophy by reference to what the reasonable man would decide, {\it ho_i an ho phronimos horiseien In modern philosophy, however, the Reasonable Man, and the notion of reasonableness generally, receives little respect. The word is nearly always challenged. What do you mean by reasonable'?'' it is asked; I do not understand what the word reasonable' means. According to what criteria is the word being used ?. What are the canons of being reasonable ?''. This question can sometimes be fairly asked and illuminatingly answered. We can sometimes subsume the particular inference under some general characterisation of inference types. We might be able to answer the question by saying that it was an induction by elimination or an induction by enumeration; we might specify whether it was on economic or political grounds we were advocating aid to poorer nations, or whether the reasonableness of our policy was simply a moral reasonableness, that they needed what we could well afford to give. The inferences we actually use in the course of our arguments are highly variegated, and it may well make our contention clearer if we can classify the inference we are drawing as being of a familiar type. Thus far the question What do you mean by reasonable'?'' is [98] fair and helpful: but often it is used rhetorically rather than to elucidate; as a means of disallowing the use of the word reasonable' altogether, and insisting that it always be replaced by a substitute. Used this way, the question often has a paralysing effect on philosophical discussion, because although sometimes we are using the word reasonable ' to flag a simple, easily recognised inference of a familiar, well-specified type, usually such inferences are too obvious to need any flagging at all, and we tend to reserve the word reasonable ' to flag those inferences which are not simple or completely specified in formal terms. In calling them reasonable, we mean not that they are particular instances of some standard type of inference, but that we believe that a reasonable man after examining this particular inference will recognise its force. Men challenged to say what we mean in terms other than the word reasonable we are often at a loss what answer to return, for the word reasonable had been chosen just because there was no other, more specific term available. We can sometimes recapitulate our argument, stressing those features which seem most to give it weight : but beyond a certain point we can do no more, and in most cases a determined opponent need never let himself be brought to admit the force of an argument he does not like. In most cases, as I shall maintain in this paper, we cannot exhibit our inferences as being of certain, generally accepted, types. The rhetorical question  What do you mean by `reasonable'?'' assumes that we can, and our inability to answer is taken as evidence that our thoughts are confused.

راجع الموقع ادناه

http://users.ox.ac.uk/~jrlucas/reasble.html

اطيب الاماني
|Articles |News |مقالات |بيانات