Some thoughts of Law.

I think this is the first time I post about something relevant to 'Law'.
Hahah...
Well I came to some situations I really cannot get a solution...and therefore, decided to share it here.


In contract and tort law, to sue a person for damages, one shall go for those who have deepest pocket.
The logic here is, the poor will suffer more than the rich in paying, say, 100 bucks of damages.
But does this means the poor can continue doing the wrongs and let the rich to bear with it?
The poor will not feel guilty at all, since they will not get sued.
And the rich will not mind at all, because the rich is RICH!
I understand that this is mainly deal with contract or tort, and not what so serious criminal offence.
But a wrong is still a wrong.
And this principle makes the law fails to deter people from doing something wrong.
When the law lost its function, is it still a good law then??


Another question here.
In criminal law, a murderer must have the intention to cause the death in order to be convicted.
It seems logical, but what is the extent of the 'intention'?
A person who hates you to the max using a gun to shoot you, that obviously intended to kill you.
But lets think about some dillemma situation:
Lets say a plane with terrorists inside who were hijacking the plane to bang into a place where there's millions of ppl on it.
Should you shoot down the plane, killing other innocents inside to save millions of ppl lives?
It is morally right to kill few to save more.
But afterall you are still 'intending' to kill the few in the plane, as in shooting down the plane in purpose, knowing that the passengers inside will die.
So, shall this be a murder case??
On the other hand, if you have the knowledge of the millions will be dying if you never shoot down the plane, and yet you done nothing, is it indirectly 'intending' to let them die also?



Lets go to a simplier situation now, and the setting now is in the United State.
Lets say you killed someone who has just murdered your family.
Shall you convicted by murder?
It seems obvious that you actually murdered someone by killing him.
But lets say you didn't kill the guy, the State will still hang him till death in the end.
We say that one is wrong to kill someone, because one has no right to take away others right to life.
But the situation now is, the person deserves to die and has already no right to life.
So are you still wrong in murdering him?
Whats the difference of you causing him to die and the State giving him the death sentence??

Law is simple, when you just read and memorise it.
But when you tend to think alot, you will find that -
Law is complicated!
And I guess this is why law is interesting...
Lots more situations that the law couldn't deal with it perfectly.
To be continued.
=)