(The way we use) law is unjust!

Have philosophical discussions about politics, law, and government.
Featured Article: Definition of Freedom - What Freedom Means to Me
Post Reply
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 24th, 2020, 10:41 am The standards of "proof" need to be even more stringent than they are.
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:28 am Actually, we can, and do, just that. We humans create, implement and enforce laws that we require each other to follow. Collectively, we decide what is permissible and what is not, and we make our laws accordingly. So we certainly can "convict people just because we feel that they're guilty". The question is whether we should? 🤔
Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2020, 8:49 am Did you think that I was saying it was physically or practically impossible?
No, I was questioning your assertion that "The standards of "proof" need to be even more stringent than they are". I should've been more autistic, and said it directly. My apologies.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Terrapin Station »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 1:45 pm
Terrapin Station wrote: May 24th, 2020, 10:41 am The standards of "proof" need to be even more stringent than they are.
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:28 am Actually, we can, and do, just that. We humans create, implement and enforce laws that we require each other to follow. Collectively, we decide what is permissible and what is not, and we make our laws accordingly. So we certainly can "convict people just because we feel that they're guilty". The question is whether we should? 🤔
Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2020, 8:49 am Did you think that I was saying it was physically or practically impossible?
No, I was questioning your assertion that "The standards of "proof" need to be even more stringent than they are". I should've been more autistic, and said it directly. My apologies.
In other words, it's obviously my opinion that we don't have stringent enough standards of "proof," because people can be convicted on testimony alone, people can be convicted of murder when there's no body, etc. Obviously I do not agree with the fact that people can be convicted in those situations.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

You raise maybe the most important point of all, which I missed. 😳 The most important thing a jury must be able to do is to find that no verdict can be reached because of a lack of acceptable evidence.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2020, 1:58 pm it's obviously my opinion that we don't have stringent enough standards of "proof," because people can be convicted on testimony alone, people can be convicted of murder when there's no body, etc. Obviously I do not agree with the fact that people can be convicted in those situations.
Gods, I hate this no-edit policy here! Adding to my last post:

A jury should be able to dismiss a trial for lack of evidence, because doing otherwise is contrary to justice and fairness to/for all, which should be their only priority.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Frank Pray
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: May 29th, 2020, 12:10 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Frank Pray »

How could we think that a law, drafted in advance, could possibly account for all circumstances in which that law might be applied? It’s arrogant and conceited to think that we could do so, isn’t it? And yet we use and apply law according to the ‘letter of the law’, and we punish offenders accordingly. So, in practice, we often apply the law unjustly … because it’s the law. Why do we do this?
The development of law in the U.S. legal system is not legislative only, but decisional. Courts often must interpret and apply legislative intent for the very reason you state: not every circumstance fits neatly within the wording of the statute. Your critique of the Courts applies mostly at the level of the trial courts, or at least you do not mention the appellate courts. The appellate courts alone have the latitude to set precedent by reaching reasoned conclusions of law applied to the trial record presented on appeal. Appellate courts look at whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, and whether the application of the law by the trial court was correct. Once that appellate decision is reached, the court has the discretion to make it a published decision, that is, a reported precedent that will be applied to the facts of the next case similar to it. Thus litigants and their lawyers, or businesses and their corporate counsel obtain a degree of assurance about how to conduct their affairs.

Your argument seems to drive too wide a wedge between justice and the law. The goal is justice under the law, and that the law is to be applied uniformly. Of course, sometimes the strict application of the law produces an unjust result. That is inevitable in a human system, but the U.S. legal system can be characterized as Churchhill wrote of democracy: "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"

If you want more just laws, the effort should be focused on influencing the legislature. That is where good or bad laws originate. The courts can do little except resolve the disputes that come before them, working with the laws already made. While they can rule on constitutionality or interpretation, they cannot achieve justice independently of the laws they inherit. The most a court can do is seek a "just" result by applying the law fairly by a reasoned analysis. But there can be no justice in a system in which the law is disregarded in favor of a particular judge's whimsical or idiosyncratic idea of justice in the particular case before her.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Pattern-chaser »

Frank Pray wrote: May 29th, 2020, 2:00 am Your argument seems to drive too wide a wedge between justice and the law. The goal is justice under the law, and that the law is to be applied uniformly. Of course, sometimes the strict application of the law produces an unjust result. That is inevitable in a human system...
So are you arguing that we must accept that, because we try to draft laws that anticipate every future application, there simply will be injustice, from time to time? Do you counsel that we accept this injustice?
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Frank Pray
New Trial Member
Posts: 5
Joined: May 29th, 2020, 12:10 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Frank Pray »

"So are you arguing that we must accept that, because we try to draft laws that anticipate every future application, there simply will be injustice, from time to time? Do you counsel that we accept this injustice?"
My argument is that we have no choice because occasional unjust outcomes are inevitable. As in any system, including a system of justice, the issue is the tolerable margin of error. But only error should be tolerated rather than the deliberate misuse of the law to produce unjust results. The latter category includes, for example, the Jim Crow laws or the now overturned "separate but equal" race-based court decisions. Those statutes and decisions needed to be overturned and eventually were. Currently, there is an unending debate in the U.S. on the "justice" of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions giving women the constitutional right of women to abort. Quite clearly, the U.S. is deeply divided on the "justice" of state statutes that seek to restrict abortion. Whatever the future of Roe v. Wade, you can be sure that much of the country will feel the outcome is "unjust."

So, again, my point is that the problem of the law not accomplishing justice cannot be solved by hoping that a judge in any particular case will do justice in spite of the law. The only reasonable hope is that the judge will do justice because of the law.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by evolution »

Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2020, 5:26 am
evolution wrote: May 25th, 2020, 10:20 pm

We "can't", or, We do but it would be better if we did not?
English--how does it work?
"We can't... do some thing" means that 'it' can NOT be done.

Yet here we are, in the days when this is written, doing what you said "we can't do".
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by evolution »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: May 26th, 2020, 6:29 am
evolution wrote: May 25th, 2020, 9:59 pm I found discovering what caused the individual offending, in the beginning, and found just preventing that from ever occurring at the start to be no problem at all. Therefore, there is no so called "problem" to correct from the outset.
So, what did you discover to be the cause and what did you do to prevent it from ever occurring at the start?
What caused the offending behavior of ALL adult human beings is their past experiences.

What I did do is the same as I am doing right now, I am in the process of learning how to explain the process that will prevent stop those adults behaviors which children experience, that then causes those children to grow up offending.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by evolution »

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am But what happens if the judge, and/or jury them self, are not just and fair? What happens if a judge, for example, hates wife beaters buts likes husband beaters, or vice-versa? Would they really be applying 'justice and fairness' in all situations?
The public scrutiny of our court system, currently in place, would/could allow us to maintain those principles of fairness and justice.
But where does so called "public scrutiny" come from mostly?

The media mostly presents what sells. They are obviously motivated by money far more than they are by Truth and fairness. Most of the media is governed by the motto, 'Do not let the truth get in the way of a good story'.

Also, the public do not hear the WHOLE story. Listening to and hearing the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is meant to be one purpose of courts, judges, and juries. The public usually only hear a tiny fraction of the story, presented by a greedy and money hungry media system.
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am It wouldn't be perfect, but wouldn't it be better than what we currently do?
I do not know what your 'we' word here is referring to exactly. I also do not know what 'you'/"we" currently do now. So I cannot answer this.

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am Oh, and by the way, who is 'just' and 'fair' in relation to exactly? A Truly Just and Fair society would not punish anyone. This society would do all it takes to understand why 'what happened' happened, and do all it could to prevent it from ever happening again. But, would not punishing anyone be applying justice and fairness to you, and some others?
Surely when a matter is presented to a court for judgement, the court is required to deliver a verdict that is fair and just to all?
Have you even contemplated what the chances would be to provide what is 'fair and just' to all?

I will tell you what the chance would be for a court to provide a 'fair and just' to all verdict would be that involved any punishment at all. The chance of that would be IMPOSSIBLE.
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am Not just to the accused, but to the victim, to other affected citizens, and to society at large. Not punishing anyone would not deliver justice to the population at large, would it?
YES. If what else I mentioned is done.
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am Justice is not soft-hearted, but even-handed.
And there is the VERY PROBLEM you are going to have till the day you die.

Others will have a completely different and opposing view of what is actually 'fair and just' from you. So, how could there EVER be a 'fair and just' system to all with your proposal here?

You soft-hearted or even-handed view is such a narrowed-view of things, and that is why you are not seeing how your views here will NEVER EVER be close to being 'fair and just' to all.

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am

I am not sure where you are from but does not the law there give some discretionary power to the judge?

Do not some of the punishments for crimes, written in law, have a recommended minimum sentence and a recommended maximum sentence with discretion given to the judge anywhere in between? Or, are the punishments there already written and fixed?
There is some discretion, of course, but even this does not transform our written-in-advance laws into a system which is fair to all, in all circumstances.
If there was FULL discretion do you have think or believe that that would be 'fair and just' to all?

Surely EVERY person's own individual views and prejudices would be actual evidence and proof that even with FULL or NO discretion given to punishing judges, then there will NEVER be a chance of a 'fair and just' system to and for all.
Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am In our current system, the only point where the law can be applied justly according to the facts of each particular case is during the court hearing(s). No law can account for all the circumstances under which it might be applied.
So, if there was no written law at all, then what do you propose would a sentencing judge calculate the punishment they give on exactly?

Pattern-chaser wrote: May 26th, 2020, 7:23 am
evolution wrote: May 24th, 2020, 1:10 am

But is this not exactly what happens now, in the country where you are at?
Sometimes, yes. But not always. The laws, as expressed, do not allow it. The laws, as expressed, prevent justice, in certain cases.
When you say "prevent justice" here, what do you actually mean?

Are the judges not providing the sentences that you find would be 'fair and just' to you?

Just out of curiosity, are you under some sort of illusion that IF sentences were provided that you found to be "justice", then that would be the same as what is 'fair and just', or "justice", to all?
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by evolution »

Frank Pray wrote: May 29th, 2020, 6:57 pm
"So are you arguing that we must accept that, because we try to draft laws that anticipate every future application, there simply will be injustice, from time to time? Do you counsel that we accept this injustice?"
My argument is that we have no choice because occasional unjust outcomes are inevitable. As in any system, including a system of justice, the issue is the tolerable margin of error. But only error should be tolerated rather than the deliberate misuse of the law to produce unjust results. The latter category includes, for example, the Jim Crow laws or the now overturned "separate but equal" race-based court decisions. Those statutes and decisions needed to be overturned and eventually were. Currently, there is an unending debate in the U.S. on the "justice" of the U.S. Supreme Court's decisions giving women the constitutional right of women to abort. Quite clearly, the U.S. is deeply divided on the "justice" of state statutes that seek to restrict abortion. Whatever the future of Roe v. Wade, you can be sure that much of the country will feel the outcome is "unjust."

So, again, my point is that the problem of the law not accomplishing justice cannot be solved by hoping that a judge in any particular case will do justice in spite of the law. The only reasonable hope is that the judge will do justice because of the law.
I agree that whenever human beings make a law, and/or decide a punishment, then that itself is a system, which is and will be unjust for someone.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

evolution wrote: May 30th, 2020, 4:52 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: May 26th, 2020, 6:29 am

So, what did you discover to be the cause and what did you do to prevent it from ever occurring at the start?
What caused the offending behavior of ALL adult human beings is their past experiences.

What I did do is the same as I am doing right now, I am in the process of learning how to explain the process that will prevent stop those adults behaviors which children experience, that then causes those children to grow up offending.
Okay. I thought you were speaking of something specific that happened. So, the problem is how to raise children in such a way that they will autonomously choose to do the good or right thing when they are adults. That is a task that religions have taken on from their beginnings.
evolution
Posts: 957
Joined: April 19th, 2020, 6:20 am

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by evolution »

Marvin_Edwards wrote: May 30th, 2020, 9:12 am
evolution wrote: May 30th, 2020, 4:52 am

What caused the offending behavior of ALL adult human beings is their past experiences.

What I did do is the same as I am doing right now, I am in the process of learning how to explain the process that will prevent stop those adults behaviors which children experience, that then causes those children to grow up offending.
Okay. I thought you were speaking of something specific that happened. So, the problem is how to raise children in such a way that they will autonomously choose to do the good or right thing when they are adults. That is a task that religions have taken on from their beginnings.
Well we all, hopefully, know how well that did not go. So, I suggest, it best we never go down those well worn paths again.

Remember this is about doing what actually teaches good and right, and not doing what teaches and causes evil, bad, nor wrong. The intention behind all religions might be for the well and good for all, but the way religions are interpreted and taught has, so far, obviously caused what is wrong, evil, and bad.
User avatar
Terrapin Station
Posts: 6227
Joined: August 23rd, 2016, 3:00 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell and WVO Quine
Location: NYC Man

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Terrapin Station »

evolution wrote: May 30th, 2020, 4:44 am
Terrapin Station wrote: May 26th, 2020, 5:26 am

English--how does it work?
"We can't... do some thing" means that 'it' can NOT be done.

Yet here we are, in the days when this is written, doing what you said "we can't do".
No, that's not actually how English works. That's a misunderstanding about how it works, especially common in connection with some conditions that are referenced in the DSMs.
User avatar
Marvin_Edwards
Posts: 1106
Joined: April 14th, 2020, 9:34 pm
Favorite Philosopher: William James
Contact:

Re: (The way we use) law is unjust!

Post by Marvin_Edwards »

evolution wrote: May 30th, 2020, 9:33 am
Marvin_Edwards wrote: May 30th, 2020, 9:12 am

Okay. I thought you were speaking of something specific that happened. So, the problem is how to raise children in such a way that they will autonomously choose to do the good or right thing when they are adults. That is a task that religions have taken on from their beginnings.
Well we all, hopefully, know how well that did not go. So, I suggest, it best we never go down those well worn paths again.

Remember this is about doing what actually teaches good and right, and not doing what teaches and causes evil, bad, nor wrong. The intention behind all religions might be for the well and good for all, but the way religions are interpreted and taught has, so far, obviously caused what is wrong, evil, and bad.
So then, we'll teach our children right and wrong in the public schools. And we'll teach them to love good not just for themselves but for others as well? Any ideas on what the moral curriculum should contain?
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Politics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021