Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Pattern-chaser]

Well, we both know that an ideal world is far from reality

Seemingly there are cases in which what you suggested have been applied. For instance, in Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that public opinion could be a relevant factor in judicial decisions. However, this approach is nuanced, as seen in Santosh Kumar Satish Bhushan Bariyar v. Maharashtra, where the court emphasized that public opinion should not influence sentencing, especially in capital punishment cases.

Yes, "nuance". This is, I think, a reaction of the court to real life in the real world, and making (forcing?) the law to conform to the real world when that seems appropriate. But it also shows how the courts sometimes decide *not* to do this, again bringing our law into conformance with reality, the reference/master. Nuance, as you say.

[Sushan]

Well, we both know that an ideal world is far from reality

Seemingly there are cases in which what you suggested have been applied. For instance, in Gurvail Singh v. State of Punjab, the Supreme Court held that public opinion could be a relevant factor in judicial decisions. However, this approach is nuanced, as seen in Santosh Kumar Satish Bhushan Bariyar v. Maharashtra, where the court emphasized that public opinion should not influence sentencing, especially in capital punishment cases.

Yes, "nuance". This is, I think, a reaction of the court to real life in the real world, and making (forcing?) the law to conform to the real world when that seems appropriate. But it also shows how the courts sometimes decide *not* to do this, again bringing our law into conformance with reality, the reference/master. Nuance, as you say.

However, these 'nuances' make the courts unpredictable, and also challengeable, and luckily in my country court decisions can only be appealed, but cannot be criticised without the risk of getting sued for disrespecting the court (well, the MPs can do that in the parliament because they have so called 'Parliament Privileges').

[Pattern-chaser]

However, these 'nuances' make the courts unpredictable, and also challengeable, and luckily in my country court decisions can only be appealed, but cannot be criticised without the risk of getting sued for disrespecting the court (well, the MPs can do that in the parliament because they have so called 'Parliament Privileges').

...just as the real world is unpredictable? Is it possible [the mildest sarcasm] that the courts are reflecting the actual reality within which they function?

[Sushan]

However, these 'nuances' make the courts unpredictable, and also challengeable, and luckily in my country court decisions can only be appealed, but cannot be criticised without the risk of getting sued for disrespecting the court (well, the MPs can do that in the parliament because they have so called 'Parliament Privileges').

...just as the real world is unpredictable? Is it possible [the mildest sarcasm] that the courts are reflecting the actual reality within which they function?

Indeed. Just as the real world is unpredictable, perhaps the law’s selective responsiveness is a reflection of that.

Is it possible [and I say this with the mildest sarcasm ] that courts aren't just conforming to some fixed "reality," but are instead engaging with multiple, often competing realities (i.e.: public sentiment, constitutional principles, moral philosophy, institutional integrity, etc.) which are real, yet not always harmonious?

[Pattern-chaser]

Is it possible [and I say this with the mildest sarcasm ] that courts aren't just conforming to some fixed "reality," but are instead engaging with multiple, often competing realities (i.e.: public sentiment, constitutional principles, moral philosophy, institutional integrity, etc.) which are real, yet not always harmonious?

I note no sarcasm. And yes, I think that's a good description of what is happening in the real world. Dispensing justice for all is not an easy task.

[Sushan]

Is it possible [and I say this with the mildest sarcasm ] that courts aren't just conforming to some fixed "reality," but are instead engaging with multiple, often competing realities (i.e.: public sentiment, constitutional principles, moral philosophy, institutional integrity, etc.) which are real, yet not always harmonious?

I note no sarcasm. And yes, I think that's a good description of what is happening in the real world. Dispensing justice for all is not an easy task.

Correct, that is a huge endeavour, and maybe the difficulty arises from the law having to operate across these layered realities. What we call "real" in the legal domain isn't just what physically exists but also what has normative binding force, social resonance, or moral justification.

Perhaps justice is not simply the enforcement of the real but the working through and negotiating in and with the worlds of different dimensions, some visible, some conceptual, or value-laden. That is when nuance becomes really important.