[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Noise] Jim Bell: Legal Reformer
On Wed, 13 Mar 1996, jim bell wrote:
> At 11:37 PM 3/12/96 -0800, Bill Stewart wrote:
> >At 05:40 PM 3/12/96 -0500, Black Unicorn wrote:
> >>Revise your statement to:
> >>"doesn't want anyone who hasn't spent a few years in law school to pass
> >>judgement on pending legislation and the effect of supreme court decision
> >>thereon..."
> >>and you'd be right on the money.
> >
> >I'm not a lawyer, though I've played a politician on TV. I'll grant you
> >that lawyers and other trained legal professionals can do a far better
> >job of finding and analyzing cases than amateurs like myself, though
> >I suspect a month or two's experience with Lexis would be enough to
> >let many of "the rest of us" outsearch the average lawyer of 50 years ago
> >who had to rely on his or her wits alone. But if the average intellegent
> >person _can't_ evaluate a law and have a reasonable chance of figuring
> >out what it says and what it means, there's something seriously wrong
> >with the way new laws are written, as well as enforced.
This I never denied. I agree with Mr. Stewart, it's unfortunate that the
law is so complex sometimes. Unfortunate also is the fact that there is no
solution. "Thou shall not kill," while simple in concept, and generally
understood, lacks specificty. Kill what? Do animals count? Define kill?
Does self defense apply? What about suicide? Is the self included in
the realm of those not to be killed? (Incidently, the common
understanding is incorrect in any event, the closer translation is "Thou
shall not commit Murder.")
As legal jurisprudence moved from legal formalism (apply the letter of
the law, and only the letter of the law, and damn the result, even if
unjust or beyond the intention of the legislature) moved into legal
realism, and progressive legal thought, it became more and more difficult
to predict what the results of litigation might be. This is because
judges were no longer, at least to the extent they were in the early 19th
and late 18th centuries, simple clerks who read the law and enforced it,
but rather individuals who intrepreted the intent of the law makers, and
applied the law with a mind to avoiding injustice.
The "Seal" is a classic example. At one point, if your name was on a
contract, that was it, you were bound by it. Seems ideal in some ways,
but what if you were intoxicated, or couldn't read? What if you were
told that the contract was a lease, and only after signing it did you
discover it was a contract for your endentured servitude?
Legal formalism says:
"Is this your name here?"
"Yes, but-"
"Judgement for the plaintiff."
Well now. How do you write a law that expresses the will of the
lawmakers on a complex subject with the added twist of judicial
intrepretation? Judges are people too. Some judges look at the
congressional record to see what it was congress was trying to do
exactly, some believe legislative history is a bunch of hooey. Mr. Bell,
apparently, thinks he can do a better job. I'd like to seem him try.
I don't want to be an apologist for attorneys, I have a lot of problems
with the legal profession in general. This doesn't change the fact that
not everyone on the planet can read a bill and a complicated supreme
court decision and apply them together to an entirely unrelated area. In
fact, most lawyers will have problems too. If not, then there would
never be court cases. The parties to litigation would already know the
outcome, and fighting it would be pointless. Do you really think this is
ever going to happen?
Someone with almost no legal experience, on the other hand, is simply out of
their league. Mr. Bell, this means you. I'm sorry we can't all run like
Carl Lewis, I know that would be a perfect world, well in some people's
view anyhow. But this kind of finger pointing, and name calling, and
cries of "elitist" it begins to look like the kind of left-speak that
argues that everyone has the same potential in life. Mr. Bell's opinion
aside, (I already know what he thinks) I'd have to be an idiot to go to
law school for 3 years plus post grad work and still come out knowing no
more than someone who looks at lexis a lot. Sorry, if that makes me
elitist, so be it. (I happen to be elitist for other reasons, but that's
beside the point).
Can the average person read a criminal statute and tell how old a sexual
partner has to be to avoid statuatory rape charges in their state?
Sure. That's easy. That part of the law is fairly available. Now take
the same person and ask them what the supreme court case ruling that
parents can sue a man for "corruption of a child" (taking her viginity)
even after the pair is legally married means in their specific case. Not
so easy anymore.
Point being, it's easier to look at criminal law and decide what it is
you are not supposed to do (because such statutes are fairly specific
about the conduct they are trying to restrict, and need very little
complexity) than it is to apply complex regulatory statutes to asset
seizure cases and entirely distinct fields. Mr. Bell seems to think that
because he knows when he will get a parking ticket, he's qualified to
render his legal opinions to the list as if they were gospel, and no one
is entitled to question his qualifications.
> Well said. If more people lambasted this "Black Unicorn"
That's Mr. Black Unicorn to you.
> fellow for his
> legal-elitist ways, he'd actually be forced to either shut up or use
> reasoned argument to support his odd position.
1) You wouldn't know reasoned argument if it bit you on the ass.
2) My position (Which I am assuming you are even intrepreting correctly)
is hardly odd or uncommon. I would say it's fairly common knowledge that
you will be in better shape if you e.g. hire a lawyer to do your will
than if you do it alone. I would say you'd have to be an idiot to even
try to represent yourself in the most simple criminal case for assault.
> Laws, as I understand it, used to be written so that ordinary people could
> understand them.
And thus were patently inflexible. That's legal formalism. I might add
that laws were not always so written. Nero posted all the laws
publically, and wrote them clearly. At the same time, he posted them at
the top of the columns in the senate, so no one could read them. Writing
law so it's accessible to the common man is not an easy thing. One could
easily make the arguement that laws were never accessible in that way,
Mr. Bell's unsupported assertion aside.
> That's the way it ought to be today,
See my contract example above as to why this is complete ignorance and
shortsightedness.
> but isn't, precisely
> because the elitists have had their way for so long.
Simplicty and fair law simply do not go together. If the elitists have
had their way for so long, perhaps you should look to the electorate who
continually sends them to the capitol. I might add that I have never
seen simple legislation in the way that you mean it from the law makers that
have never even been to law school either. (There are plenty of them too).
> There used to be a
> saying, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse." The presumption was that you
> had a responsibility to know what the law said, and that most people could
> understand what it said, and if you didn't take the time to know it you were
> guilty despite this. Today, that saying is laughably out of date: When
> people like "Black Unicorn" claim that ordinary people haven't the skills to
> evaluate any law or proposed law, it is obvious that he and his ilk is a
> major portion of the problem.
I don't believe this is obvious at all. First, what does my
acknowledgement of the complexity of law, and the need for a profession
to intrepret it have to do with my contribution of the problem?
Second, you say:
> Laws, as I understand it, used to be written so that ordinary people could
> understand them. That's the way it ought to be today.
Forgive me, Mr. Bell, but isn't this exactly what you are accusing me
of saying? "Ordinary people can't understand the law," is your point,
yes? Why then aren't you part of the problem?
Or is it just when ">people like "Black Unicorn" claim that ordinary
people [can't understand the law]" that there is a problem? Your entire
point hinges on your personal dislike of either me, or lawyers, as you
have said exactly the same thing I have said all along. Law is so
complicated, you need a lawyer to figure it out. Funny, that's precisely
what I was trying to get at in telling you to stop posting to the list
your ravings about Supreme Court cases because you had no idea what you
were talking about. Seems you've conceeded my point. I may be elitist,
but even you, in your own words, admit that my ilk is necessary.
> >(I suppose I've complained enough that there _is_ something
> >seriously wrong them that I'm not adding any new weight here;
> >if the author of a portion of a law can get up on the Senate floor
> >and say that he realizes that part of the law he's proposed is
> >unconstitutional and unenforceable, and that this doesn't bother him*,
> >I guess it's no surprise that one of the more-or-less "good guys"
> >in the Senate can propose a law so ambiguously worded that it
> >looks good on the face until a good lawyer takes the time to rip
> >it apart - maybe Leahy will read some of Junger's review?)
>
> The system is sick, perhaps irretrievably so. Dr. Strangelove (in the movie
> of the same name) stated that "deterrence is the art of making the enemy
> FEAR to attack." I think the main problem (and the most direct solution) to
> the "politician-problem" in this country is to make government agents FEAR
> to do the wrong thing.
I'm sure this has something to do with the point at hand.
> Jim Bell
> [email protected]
---
My prefered and soon to be permanent e-mail address: [email protected]
"In fact, had Bancroft not existed, potestas scientiae in usu est
Franklin might have had to invent him." in nihilum nil posse reverti
00B9289C28DC0E55 E16D5378B81E1C96 - Finger for Current Key Information