The Law

[track2004]

I'm in law school so I have my own opinion, but I see the debates on PM about abortion and gays and everything and I'm just wondering what y'all think.

The first question is about what the law purports to be, whether it is a measure of Society's beliefs, so that it changes 'with the times,' OR rather a slow march to a universal Truth, so it is always 'improving.' I think C, but I read case law all day, so my pov is biased.

The second question is about what the law should be. Should it be independent from Church law, moving toward Church law naturally, mimicking Church law by legislative doing, or just more clearly written? I vote D, again bc I'm biased.

Think about it, ponder what the differences btwn the first and second question mean, discuss amongst urselves. I'll pop back by in a bit to see where this went.

Edited March 30, 2010 by track2004

[Sternhauser]

[quote name='track2004' date='30 March 2010 - 05:15 AM' timestamp='1269944109' post='2083170']
I'm in law school so I have my own opinion, but I see the debates on PM about abortion and gays and everything and I'm just wondering what y'all think.

The first question is about what the law purports to be, whether it is a measure of Society's beliefs, so that it changes 'with the times,' OR rather a slow march to a universal Truth, so it is always 'improving.' I think C, but I read case law all day, so my pov is biased.

The second question is about what the law should be. Should it be independent from Church law, moving toward Church law naturally, mimicking Church law by legislative doing, or just more clearly written? I vote D, again bc I'm biased.

Think about it, ponder what the differences btwn the first and second question mean, discuss amongst urselves. I'll pop back by in a bit to see where this went.
[/quote]

The law (I usually use the word "statute" to separate the noble word "law" from ordinances which are [i]not[/i] based, either by intent or actual efficacy, on right reason, nor given by him who has care of a community) purports to be what those who define and enforce it purport it to be. Whatever the mundanes think is moot.

The law should do nothing but serve to protect and/or remunerate real individuals from/after real acts of fraud or aggression. God can take care of enforcing God's laws. Men should enforce laws that protect the life, limb and property of men. No one has any natural or man-bestowed right to directly uphold God's moral law by violence (law). Only insofar as protecting life, limb and property overlaps the moral law may one [i]indirectly[/i] uphold the moral law by violence. Enforcing law implies force. Violence. Physical violence is only moral for the protection of physical things.

The fact that someone does something against God's law does not necessarily justify using violence to prevent, stop or punish that action. If you wish to maintain any moral integrity in your potential career, you had better discern that logical line in the sand, and then vow to never cross it. But by virtue of your putting yourself into that position in the first place, it is unlikely that you will be able to discern that logical line or keep that vow.

Have fun in the legal world. You're going to find yourself surrounded by people who are doing little more than playing a big game of Dungeons and Dragons, legal edition. "I cast my spell of binding on you! [i]Stare decisis: [/i]Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)! You can't do anything now, because some men in black robes 150 years ago uttered their binding incantations!" Of course, [i]modern[/i] men in black robes can and do "interpret" (read: ignore) plain English (and law English, it seems) in any way they care to, justice be damned.

You're going to find yourself getting involved in cases about which you will have grave moral reservations, but he who pays the piper calls the tune. It's best not to pick up the instrument to begin with.

Your legal counterparts (and likely you, before long) will live for "winning cases" not by proving innocence, or proving moral justification for an action, but by finding obscure loopholes and precedents in text written by mere mundanes such as you and I, yet mundanes whom they revere for their great and artificial power over other men. Justice is not achieved by finding loopholes and precedents. It's achieved by doing the right thing: by vindicating the innocent by the facts of his innocence. You're going to be surrounded by people who are utterly absorbed with doing the thing right, (researching, getting their papers filed correctly and in a timely fashion,) not doing the right thing. They get mesmerized and trapped by the intricate web of rules and standards which they themselves spin and by which they bind themselves. Unfortunately, they also entangle people who have no desire to be part of their world. I am somewhat relieved that legal wonks people become so absorbed in their own special, web-like world. They might cause a lot of trouble for the rest of us otherwise.

~Sternhauser

Edited March 30, 2010 by Sternhauser

[Nihil Obstat]

What happened to my lovely post?

Ok, attempt number two:

I believe current American law is an expression of the beliefs of American society...... which does tend towards mumbo jumbo. Lol.
I like the second question less though. I see moral truth and God's law as being identical. I picked God's law, but I could just as easily have picked the other.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='30 March 2010 - 11:45 AM' timestamp='1269963957' post='2083340']
What happened to my lovely post?
[/quote]
Era maybe?


[spoiler]
jk

just taking a jab at two dear friends, namely era and hot stuff.

i speculate that era won't get mad but hot stuff might.
hot stuff - you impersonated me once in tinychat so I can make fun of u a little without meriting 'jerk' status imo.

i love you all...

[/spoiler]

[Nihil Obstat]

I do actually know what happened. I wrote my post while I was thinking about the poll question, then I answered the poll before I clicked add reply.

[Laudate_Dominum]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='30 March 2010 - 01:02 PM' timestamp='1269968570' post='2083388']
I do actually know what happened. I wrote my post while I was thinking about the poll question, then I answered the poll before I clicked add reply.
[/quote]
how much did he pay you to say that?

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' date='30 March 2010 - 12:09 PM' timestamp='1269968954' post='2083395']
how much did he pay you to say that?
[/quote]
It was for the Bunchies! Always for the Bunchies!!

[Resurrexi]

A law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.

[Luigi]

Was it Boswell who said, "The law is a ass"?

No law ever stopped a crime. Whenever I read about a woman being gunned down by her ex, the newspaper typically reports that "She had a restraining order against him." And I think to myself, "Holding the restraining order in front of didn't stop the bullet, did it?"

The only thing the law can do is punish a person after the fact.

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Luigi' date='30 March 2010 - 09:14 PM' timestamp='1270008855' post='2083866']
Was it Boswell who said, "The law is a ass"?

No law ever stopped a crime. Whenever I read about a woman being gunned down by her ex, the newspaper typically reports that "She had a restraining order against him." And I think to myself, "Holding the restraining order in front of didn't stop the bullet, did it?"

The only thing the law can do is punish a person after the fact.
[/quote]

i would disagree with that. their are plenty of awesomely shaped public parks and school fields i would have wheelied through on my enduro dirtbike, if it werent for it being illegal. and other things.

the only Direct thing the law can do is punish, but it can indirectly dissuade further lawbreaking.

[Jesus_lol]

I would say that American law is an expression of societies current beliefs, but thats wrong. its really more often an expression of beliefs held by old people from a previous generation or two.

[track2004]

[quote name='Resurrexi' date='30 March 2010 - 08:29 PM' timestamp='1269991745' post='2083719']
A law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, made by him who has care of the community, and promulgated.
[/quote]

In theory this is right, but in practice it doesn't seem so. In countries where the laws are generally behaved, the gov't creates more law. Also some laws don't seem to fit this 'common good' notion. It seems that drinking or smoking shouldn't be legal if we're talking about 'the common good' or if they are then pot should also be legal. It seems that corp law basically laughs in the face of the common good. At any rate nukes should be illegal, right. Legal policy rarely seems to discuss 'the common good.'

[quote]
Your legal counterparts (and likely you, before long) will live for "winning cases" not by proving innocence, or proving moral justification for an action, but by finding obscure loopholes and precedents in text written by mere mundanes such as you and I, yet mundanes whom they revere for their great and artificial power over other men. Justice is not achieved by finding loopholes and precedents. It's achieved by doing the right thing: by vindicating the innocent by the facts of his innocence.
[/quote]

Our systems lives and dies by the fight. I'm going to assume you're talking about Criminal cases first. We have an adversary system to ensure there is a certain rigor before we just lock a guy up. The defense atty is not a bad person. He (or she) ensures that we (The People) don't put innocent men behind bars. It is better to let a bad man free than lock a good man up. It's a basic assumption of our system and I'm okay with that. The bad person will commit another crime and next time The People won't be caught by the same error. Further, usually it isn't 'loopholes' that get criminals off, it is lack of evidence or police impropriety.

In civil cases it's just about the money (or maybe injunctions or recission or other mumbo jumbo). Here it's my argument against yours and who ever wins wins. I'm fine with that. It means that sometimes the wrong side wins (and creates precedent to keep winning). I have huge issues with IP Rights in the US bc the main jist of the whole thing is that the party with the most money wins (also holds for corp law often enough).

Finally, Justice is achieved by precedents. Precedents create a uniform system of application of the law. Precedents mean that the way the law was applied to one guy is the same for everyone because they create a fuller picture of 'the law' than statutes do. Precedent defines what 4th, 5th, and 6th amendment rights you get and when the police are violating them. Precedent governs what contracts mean and when you can change that.

Our system of law tries to ensure that justice is done, it tries to find a method of application to ensure that the innocent can prove the fact of his innocence, but do not negate it's methods. It is better to have an adversary system with both statutes and precedents than to let The People (or the cops) decide who is innocent and who is guilty.


[quote]
The only thing the law can do is punish a person after the fact.
[/quote]

The only thing Criminal law can do is that, but other laws create systems of rights and obligations. One system of law creates 'people.' You could ignore your obligations, but that kinda defeats the purpose of getting the rights in the first place (tho that gets a whole corp law battle started and that battle never ends).


Anyway....

Laws change with the culture. Here in CA we're probably going to vote to make pot legal in November. Some states think we're crazy, but
others already have medical mj laws and will probably also legalize pot. Cocaine used to be legal, as did LSD and any number of other narcs. Alcohol used to be illegal. (Controlled substances is the easiest area to point this out in.) Sure research on the dangers of these substances changed, but so did the society's view of them. I'm not saying this happens with the 'bigger' crimes (murder is unlikely to ever be accepted as totes cool by society) but the bulk of the system is for smaller crimes.

[Ed Normile]

Without a doubt the law is an expression of societies CURRENT beleifs, that is why we no longer have slavery, once totally legal, we no longer consider women as property of their husbands, there are laws concerning rape in a marriage etc. We learn and change, who knows, a few years from now the open exchange of ideas on a forum such as this may be illegal if enough people allow the law makers to pass such legislation.

By the way well said Stern, as usual!

ed

[rkwright]

[quote name='Sternhauser' date='30 March 2010 - 10:35 AM' timestamp='1269963314' post='2083336']
The law (I usually use the word "statute" to separate the noble word "law" from ordinances which are [i]not[/i] based, either by intent or actual efficacy, on right reason, nor given by him who has care of a community) purports to be what those who define and enforce it purport it to be. Whatever the mundanes think is moot.

The law should do nothing but serve to protect and/or remunerate real individuals from/after real acts of fraud or aggression. God can take care of enforcing God's laws. Men should enforce laws that protect the life, limb and property of men. No one has any natural or man-bestowed right to directly uphold God's moral law by violence (law). Only insofar as protecting life, limb and property overlaps the moral law may one [i]indirectly[/i] uphold the moral law by violence. Enforcing law implies force. Violence. Physical violence is only moral for the protection of physical things.

The fact that someone does something against God's law does not necessarily justify using violence to prevent, stop or punish that action. If you wish to maintain any moral integrity in your potential career, you had better discern that logical line in the sand, and then vow to never cross it. But by virtue of your putting yourself into that position in the first place, it is unlikely that you will be able to discern that logical line or keep that vow.

Have fun in the legal world. You're going to find yourself surrounded by people who are doing little more than playing a big game of Dungeons and Dragons, legal edition. "I cast my spell of binding on you! [i]Stare decisis: [/i]Minor vs. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1874)! You can't do anything now, because some men in black robes 150 years ago uttered their binding incantations!" Of course, [i]modern[/i] men in black robes can and do "interpret" (read: ignore) plain English (and law English, it seems) in any way they care to, justice be damned.

You're going to find yourself getting involved in cases about which you will have grave moral reservations, but he who pays the piper calls the tune. It's best not to pick up the instrument to begin with.

Your legal counterparts (and likely you, before long) will live for "winning cases" not by proving innocence, or proving moral justification for an action, but by finding obscure loopholes and precedents in text written by mere mundanes such as you and I, yet mundanes whom they revere for their great and artificial power over other men. Justice is not achieved by finding loopholes and precedents. It's achieved by doing the right thing: by vindicating the innocent by the facts of his innocence. You're going to be surrounded by people who are utterly absorbed with doing the thing right, (researching, getting their papers filed correctly and in a timely fashion,) not doing the right thing. They get mesmerized and trapped by the intricate web of rules and standards which they themselves spin and by which they bind themselves. Unfortunately, they also entangle people who have no desire to be part of their world. I am somewhat relieved that legal wonks people become so absorbed in their own special, web-like world. They might cause a lot of trouble for the rest of us otherwise.

~Sternhauser
[/quote]

Your post is extremely offensive and sadly ignorant of how the legal world actually works.

Edited April 4, 2010 by rkwright

[ThePenciledOne]

[quote name='rkwright' date='03 April 2010 - 10:26 PM' timestamp='1270344389' post='2086380']
Your post is extremely offensive and sadly ignorant of how the legal world actually works.
[/quote]

It's the truth.

Have you not been in a real life court room before? Or been a part of a divorce before or anything else of that sort?

It's not ignorant its more of a wish for a more idealistic sort of Law carried out. Sadly the system we have now has amplified humanity's flawed human nature, and all we can do is think in complacency that it works as best as it can.