Many people treat the law easily to two extremes。
Some people think that the law is white and black, and that it's literally hard; some people think it's not good. It's hard to understand. It's all a professional routine. People don't learn at all。
But in real life, whether it be the defence of rights, the handling of conflicting disputes, or the avoidance of risks in life, work, the understanding and application of the law, it is not hard to remember the law, but rather a rigorous and practical way of thinking。
The “three” methods of work promoted by the justice system, which were intended to guide the conduct of judicial proceedings, are also of great value to us in general. Today, in plain language, ordinary people can learn to use it。
I. A reading of the law, not just the words, but the spirit of the legislation
A lot of people are losing out by taking a word in isolation and taking it out of context。
The legal provisions do not exist in isolation; they are a complete system. The reading of the law cannot be confined to one sentence, but to the whole law, to understand what it is intended to protect, to regulate, and to understand what the legislation is about。
1. Do not draw conclusions from a single article of law. Different laws regulate different matters, civil matters, criminal matters and areas of error。
2. The interpretation of the article is intended not to be devoted to a word gap. The fundamental purpose of the law is to safeguard justice, protect the legitimate rights and interests of citizens and maintain social order。
3. The rule of law is a form and the rule of law is the core. The applicable law should be based on equity and justice rather than on mechanical linguism。
To put it simply: i can't understand what's behind the law, but it's easy to use it wrong, even if it's the text。
Ii. Dealing with disputes: clarifying facts and legal relations before talking about law
The contradictions in reality, mixed feelings, verbal engagements and the myths, seem complicated。
Many failed to defend their rights, not because they did not understand the law, but because they failed to distinguish between objective facts and “legal facts” and misconstrued legal relations。
It is important to distinguish between stories, subjective feelings, as we speak, which do not amount to legally recognized facts。
Legal facts must be supported by evidence: chat records, written contracts, audio-visual recordings, documentary evidence, etc. Without evidence, it is difficult to gain support at the legal level, even if it is realistic。
In the event of a dispute, let's put aside emotions and nothing:
Whether it is borrowing, labour, labour relations, contractual disputes or tort damage. The problem can only be clarified by finding quasi-substantive legal relationships that match the corresponding legal provisions。
The facts are wrong, the law is more sophisticated and the law is the same。
Applicable law: jurisprudence is the bottom line, balancing reason
A lot of people think the law is cold, completely unkind
In practice, cases are dealt with fairly, in accordance with the rules of law, reason and reason. But there's a priority. It can't be reversed。
1. Jurisprudence is always the bottom line. Reason, compassion, and custom cannot prevail over the law. The claim must have a legal basis and not rely solely on “i'm giving up” to demand results。
2. Rejection of mechanical application provisions. The same law, with different circumstances, different degrees of fault and different consequences, may lead to different outcomes. The judiciary is generous and the defence of the rights of ordinary people is taboo。
The pursuit of legality must also be reasonable. It would appear rigid to speak of jurisprudence alone, and social rules would be confused if the law was set aside. True justice is the right to strike a balance, within the legal framework, between popular awareness and public decency。
Iv. 4 recommendations to ordinary people for practical conduct, direct reference to everyday events
Let's clean up the facts, gather evidence, and find the law. Yes
Look at the law not to be fragmented, not just short video clips, try to read the whole rule and refuse to take it out of context
Less faith in oral promises, less weight given to retention of evidence, no substitute for verbal assurances
Maintaining the legal bottom line and not taking advantage of the rules; defending rights in a situation of reason, not bias, not extreme claims
At the end
The law is not a shackle for ordinary people, but a tool for protecting our own rights and interests。
Accurate understanding of the law is the reading of the value behind the text; the correct application of the law is the appreciation of the essence of the event and the balance of jurisprudence with humanity。
We know how to protect ourselves without learning to be wrong, without drilling holes, without understanding mechanically。
Cpp: this paper is a common law knowledge-sharing exercise and is only for study purposes and does not constitute a case-by-case legal opinion. In case of specific disputes, legal professionals are advised。
What do you think is the easiest misunderstanding of the law in life? The comment section is welcome to talk。
#legal science #
