Talk:Prejudice (legal term)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Prejudice (legal procedure))
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Law (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

When is "prejudice" used by it self in this legal context?[edit]

Could someone site an example of when the legal term, in this context, of prejudice is used singularly and not accompanied by "with" or "without". I could not find one. If there is not an example, shouldn't the title of the article be "With/Without Prejudice" or some wiki acceptable gramatical variation with both "Without Prejudice" and "With Prejudice" redirecting here. As well shouldn't it be "legal term", not "legal procedure"? A "Dismissal With Prejudice" would be a procedure whereas "With Prejudice" alone would simply be a descriptive detail of a procedure.

Thus "With/Without Prejudice (legal term)" seems a more appropriate title. DFinmitre (talk) 19:35, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Prejudice" has many meanings in the law, and it is not always "with or without". Other common usages are to show injury (e.g. "the plaintiff was prejudiced when the defendant hid evidence") or influence (e.g. "the false evidence prejudiced the jury).[1] --Mojo Hand (talk) 21:43, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mojo Hand, I am in full agreement with your statment that the word prejudice in its more general definitions can be used singularly in many ways within legal context. But this article does not address any of those meanings, it is focused on the legal terms "with prejudice" and "without prejudice". Neither of your examples using prejudice singularly relates to the context of this article, particularly since it is defined as a procedure.

So that would bring up the question, which I think is a good one. Should this article explain the other contexts of prejudice as it is applied as a legal term singularly, as you have begun doing already. In which case WP and WOP would just be two examples of several examples of the use of prejudice in legal context. I think this would actually be useful as these examples are quite different than a layman might otherwise be accustomed to seeing prejudice applied. Such application would also emphisize that it is a legal term, not a procedure, which would make it more logical for the title to be: Prejudice (legal term) DFinmitre (talk) 04:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

As well the legal definition of "without prejudice" as a tool to restrict the use of a statement, as to only as part of a settlement, would not be a procedure, it would clearly be a term. DFinmitre (talk) 04:14, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
@DFinmitre: I think your analysis is exactly right. "Prejudice" is not a legal procedure, so this article is misnamed regardless of anything else we may decide. Your points are good, and I think it should be changed to Prejudice (legal term), while expanding the content to cover all the various meanings of the term.--Mojo Hand (talk) 22:27, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
@Mojo Hand: Changed name of article from "Prejudice (legal procedure)" to "Prejudice (legal term)" and fixed redirects. Adjusted stucture to allow for clarity between singular use of word and specific applications of with/without. Examples of singular use of prejudice should be defined by those familiar to make article more complete. DFinmitre (talk) 23:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Dismissed with prejudice?[edit]

Under common law a law suit can be "dismissed with prejudice". There is nothing in this article which explains what that means. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:12, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Prejudicial evidence?[edit]

This article does a good (albeit unconfirmed) job of explaining prejudice in regard to the dismissal of a case, but has no mention of prejudice in regard to the presentation of evidence or testimony. Although it's a completely different concept, it deserves a part of this article, since there's no good parenthetical besides "law." Twin Bird 15:20, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

lost heading[edit]

this page should either be deleted or cited Eisenhower 22:09, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Common Law section[edit]

For some unexplained reason, this important meaning was deleted. I have restored it JohnClarknew (talk) 22:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring. I also believe it is an important meaning that needed to be brought back.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Publication of material likely to prejudice a fair trial[edit]

In UK (well, English) law, it is an offence to comment on evidence that could be used in court, or to comment on a case in progress [other than to report what was said]. We really should have a section on that. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 21:59, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

The article Contempt of court says

Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired. It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over and the jury has given its verdict.

which is a nice summary of what should be a longer article here. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 22:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

without prejudice??[edit]

Can someone please explain the meaning of this provision in Article 12 of the Convention on Psychotropic Substances:

(i) The provisions of this paragraph are without prejudice to the provisions of any international agreements which limit the control which may be exercised by any of the Parties over such substances in transit. : ]

Thanks, Nathan256 29 June 2005 01:40 (UTC)

Yes. Basically it means (as far as I can tell) that the convention is made and the parties to it will be bound by it, except for any parts of it which they are precluded from signing up to because of pre-existing agreements. I know nothing of the Convention of Psychotropic substances so can't put it into that context, but let's say, for instance, the UK signs an agreement with Germany that it will buy all of the country's potato needs from Germany, and makes the agreement without prejudice to the provisions of any international agreements. The UK is already bound by an international agreement that states that all trade within member nations of the EU must be free (i.e. the UK is free to trade with France, Germany, Belgium, the Czech Rep, etc., etc.) and so the agreement would be to no effect. At least I think that's what it means! This comment was left by §©ʁİƃƀȴıŋ’ Ƨł₥ȫȠ talk|contribs 15:24, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

distinction from everyday-usage sense of the word[edit]

I think there should be a paragraph explaining (best supported by some etymological information) how the legal meanings of the word are different from what it normally denotes. – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 19:25, 22 August 2013 (UTC)