Let's put it that easy, in my law school, which I "come from" lol UNT , there are three branches ... osea three specialties chingonas which "one" is one ... you must choose one: LAW: CRIMINAL-CIVIL-BUSINESS.
Well I opted for civil rights, no appeal to me criminal law all, there was a scientific structure and separate topic: I think this industry is making less and less science to legal science, well JAKOBS and functionalist theory is that momentarily saved (not to expect all hell penalty for a good time to adopt this paradigm) ADMINISTRATIVE right question! was to mix the "damn jurisprudence of concepts" with the netural-rational thing is you really can not digest. Other than that all are corrupt. Until Enterría Garcia. oh god! "?.
As had said there were three roads to choose, then I realized that little or nothing, indeed, interested in choosing the area, in the end only perspective is a kind of ridiculous that grants the right to attend.
now starting to bleed: The tragedy of this story is that some students, my friends, indeed, had been thinking since the first year of law school, what specialty-area forward?
to me that distressed me, was like trying to have all the "Body of Roman civil law" of Justinian when he studied Roman law in the first cycle (fortunately I got it.) And worst of all, the same day that we had choose the area would attend, a friend of mine still could not conclude "soul and money in your specialty to choose, I had asked twice that I choose: criminal or civil? I said: - Not later, that you like better ?.... is that bone, dammit! we had not yet taken a bloody course and criminal and you had to choose your specialty ... Then I said, "civil esocoge bacan, and said - you think, but you as I see it as criminal or civil?. . I said as criminal ... hell! did not know .... because I said no way, my friend was confused and I believe I mistook WORST. then asked, "but that such a penalty has read something, it motivates you?. my friend said, "not anything I said," good for me I've been reading me reason enough civil, criminal, but I also read something like, I like civil rights, other than that applied in everything, and because I want that.
My friend finally decided
civil rights, and as he saw uneasiness on his face ... everything is so rare, so very, very rare, also talks of guidance they gave us was a total disgrace a tremendous filth, as if the only Having to duck your head and feel a commitment distressing for wanting to learn or understand the principles and dogmas of the area that you like you were in a filthy predetermined orientation talk, or worse, as if by the mere fact of having only three areas at your school made thee feel like you're going to get to the end of the road turned into what the area has provided for your education ... ... ... pffffffffff error and disaster.
Total
, nobody knows who gets to study, sometimes happens often happens, the question is that each must be predetermined but naturally without assistance program or a plan developed which can supplement your lack of interest. I read somewhere that Gunther Jakobs in their first career steps had been involved in civil law, then moved to Bonn and then did his Hans Welzel, leaving young JAKOBS immersed in criminal law.
No matter what area or elective course is chosen within the curriculum (of course, if you're sure to choose this or that) the important thing is to come and taste the anguish because of this was born the true commitment to things better. JAKOBS IS AN EXAMPLE. Even SAVIGNY, that when he was orphaned, went to the house of his guardian von Neurath, who initiated him into the study of law with only 13 years old, the little SAVIGNY would resist to be instructed in law, but was Weiss his master, whom it must be given credit for Savigny awakened passion for Roman law and the study pandects, the rest is the history of civil law to this day. A
Well I opted for civil rights, no appeal to me criminal law all, there was a scientific structure and separate topic: I think this industry is making less and less science to legal science, well JAKOBS and functionalist theory is that momentarily saved (not to expect all hell penalty for a good time to adopt this paradigm) ADMINISTRATIVE right question! was to mix the "damn jurisprudence of concepts" with the netural-rational thing is you really can not digest. Other than that all are corrupt. Until Enterría Garcia. oh god! "?.
As had said there were three roads to choose, then I realized that little or nothing, indeed, interested in choosing the area, in the end only perspective is a kind of ridiculous that grants the right to attend.
now starting to bleed: The tragedy of this story is that some students, my friends, indeed, had been thinking since the first year of law school, what specialty-area forward?
to me that distressed me, was like trying to have all the "Body of Roman civil law" of Justinian when he studied Roman law in the first cycle (fortunately I got it.) And worst of all, the same day that we had choose the area would attend, a friend of mine still could not conclude "soul and money in your specialty to choose, I had asked twice that I choose: criminal or civil? I said: - Not later, that you like better ?.... is that bone, dammit! we had not yet taken a bloody course and criminal and you had to choose your specialty ... Then I said, "civil esocoge bacan, and said - you think, but you as I see it as criminal or civil?. . I said as criminal ... hell! did not know .... because I said no way, my friend was confused and I believe I mistook WORST. then asked, "but that such a penalty has read something, it motivates you?. my friend said, "not anything I said," good for me I've been reading me reason enough civil, criminal, but I also read something like, I like civil rights, other than that applied in everything, and because I want that.
My friend finally decided
civil rights, and as he saw uneasiness on his face ... everything is so rare, so very, very rare, also talks of guidance they gave us was a total disgrace a tremendous filth, as if the only Having to duck your head and feel a commitment distressing for wanting to learn or understand the principles and dogmas of the area that you like you were in a filthy predetermined orientation talk, or worse, as if by the mere fact of having only three areas at your school made thee feel like you're going to get to the end of the road turned into what the area has provided for your education ... ... ... pffffffffff error and disaster.
Total
, nobody knows who gets to study, sometimes happens often happens, the question is that each must be predetermined but naturally without assistance program or a plan developed which can supplement your lack of interest. I read somewhere that Gunther Jakobs in their first career steps had been involved in civil law, then moved to Bonn and then did his Hans Welzel, leaving young JAKOBS immersed in criminal law.
No matter what area or elective course is chosen within the curriculum (of course, if you're sure to choose this or that) the important thing is to come and taste the anguish because of this was born the true commitment to things better. JAKOBS IS AN EXAMPLE. Even SAVIGNY, that when he was orphaned, went to the house of his guardian von Neurath, who initiated him into the study of law with only 13 years old, the little SAVIGNY would resist to be instructed in law, but was Weiss his master, whom it must be given credit for Savigny awakened passion for Roman law and the study pandects, the rest is the history of civil law to this day. A
indeed my friend, is discovering that you like for now ... well I think "?
0 comments:
Post a Comment