Talk:Chris and the law

To do

• Chris's version of justice (whatever the hell he thinks the difference between jerkops and "true justice" is)
• explanation in Chris's own words about his run-ins with the law
• real life run-ins compared to his comic run-ins
• warped sense of justice
• need to fix the police thing. Apparently, he thinks the police are alright as "blue and black are the colors of TRUE justice; all others are vice" --Champthom 16:13, 15 March 2009 (CET)

• Don't forget what he'd do as ruler of the world for a day. --CWCAttack 06:17, 2 January 2010 (CET)

Legal system of CWCville

This Krapple post does a good job at explaining what's wrong with the legal system:

This trial reminds me of show trials in a dictatorship. - The judge immediately admitted he was partial to Chris. I admit that don't know terribly much about the justice system, but to my knowledge, judges are required to be impartial. - The defendants were obviously supplied with sub-par judges - The trial for execution took all of five minutes! No court psychologist, no official procedures, nothing! - The plaintiff is also the sole leader of CWCville, and one of its greatest employers (soup hotels) which means that the majority of the jury has reasons to say Mao and the gang are guilty (they don't want to lose their job, they don't want to be arrested themselves by Chris,...) - The copyright issue got more attention than the murder, proving that it's more about Chris's petty pride than delivering justice. - I know I already said this, but I'll say it again: The trial for an execution took five minutes. - "humane death? What's that? Just use them as target practice!"

I think we can work this in without it being too tangential, essentially we'd be pointing out that Chris's legal system lacks many very basic provisions found in most democratic legal systems, much less the Anglo-American tradition of law, namely violating impartiality. Concretely, Chris is violating the Fifth Amendment (right to due process which seems to include impartiality), Sixth Amendment (right to trial by jury by an IMPARTIAL jury), Eighth Amendment (freedom from cruel and unusual punishment - I believe they've ruled that hanging or electrocution is considered "cruel and unusual", so Chris's methods of torture by having the victims get revenge would definitely meet that), and that's just what I've read so far from the comic.

This discussion really should go here, though it could go in the main CWCville article but it says a lot about the legal system or maybe we can get into details of the trial in the CWCville article and maybe remark on Chris's flagrant disregard for basic legal principles here. --Champthom 15:24, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

• There was another one that was mentioned in a later post, but it's basically said twice in that quote you posted: most, if not all, death penalty cases take years to process. Hell, from the arrest to execution took all of a week! As well, I think the person meant to say that the four were supplied with sub-par lawyers, not judges - the guy Chris gave them was a crack-addled idiot whose main purpose was to just get them killed!

In any case, I agree that all of this should go in both here as well as the CWCville article.--Blazer 15:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this article could do with a rewrite. It's kind of disorganized compared to the other Chris and... articles.--MoarLurk 15:49, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Cub scouts?

It says that chris was kicked out of cub scouts. Where did this information come from? Also, do we even know why he was kicked out? --Exemplary 20:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

• I believe it was in one of his last Mailbags. The reasoning? AUTISM BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW--Blazer 17:35, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Rewrite Started

I decided to start the Chris and the Law's revamping with a few small things. I revamped the introduction, rearranged certain article parts, edited out some of the stupid piping and removed an entire section that really didn't need to have it's own section. It still needs work, but that's good enough for a start at the moment.--Blazer 17:38, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Anti-badmouthing law

Obviously aimed toward trolling... I think I remember reading somewhere that trolling was constitutionally valid or something. I forget the source or exact wording, though. Would be worthwhile to add if we find it. Bill Lumburg 20:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)