Bird123
Well-Known Member
Using our laws on killing as an example, I will explain why law-writing is a dumb thing to do.
Laws are official rules that people must obey. There are two kinds of rules general and absolute. General rules allow for exceptions. Absolute rules do not allow for exceptions. They always apply.
If we wrote a law proclaiming that killing was always wrong, the law would be a simple matter to write and apply but it would be opposed to our conscience (moral intuition) in many cases such as those where the facts support clear cases of self-defense.
In fact, absolute moral rules never apply because there are no human acts that are always wrong because any act can become morally justified when it is does the least harm in a moral dilemma.
We could write general rules allowing for exceptions but they would be useless when needed to judge specific cases (which might be exceptions). A law that stated "Killing is wrong as a general rule" would be useless when needed to judge specific cases.
So, basically, laws are attempts to write absolute rules by anticipating the facts in future cases. The problem with this is that human acts happen in an almost infinite variety and a slight variation might change the judgment. In the 50 states of the USA, there are 50 massive laws on murder and no two are alike. The very same killing might qualify as justifiable self-defense in some states but not in others.
The writing of laws on murder is a foolish attempt to micro-manage judgments in future cases on a grand scale. Moreover, lawmakers must do it without having the actual facts of specific cases.
Not only does the writing of laws sometimes conflict with good case-by-case judgment, it produces more dumb ideas like the loophole. Even if we know the act is morally wrong, it can't be punished unless it's specifically prohibited by the lawmakers. Does that make sense?
An expert panel, one trained for the task, unhindered by laws, would be better able to investigate the facts and judge whether a killing was justifiable or not. The state might establish the authority of such panels with a simple statement like the following
The primary task of our Criminal Justice Panels is to protect innocent citizens from serious harm caused by intentional, immoral acts while at the same time being fair in the treatment of the people accused of crimes. The panels will strive to make the correct decisions as consistently as humanly possible by getting the correct answers to both the questions of reason and the questions of conscience.
If this statement seems too simplistic, consider that the current criminal justice system in the USA was founded on the Blackstone formulation and its goal to prevent the conviction of innocent people. It has resulted in a body of laws that make it difficult to convict the guilty and undermines the system's ability to protect the public. Moreover, it ends with many innocent people pleading guilty to lesser charges because they can't trust that the flawed system will make the right decision and find them innocent.
The members of an expert panel, with its members trained to make specific kinds of decisions, unhindered by laws, will make better decisions.
Laws are mankind's attempt to Control others. Is Control really the best avenue?
Yes, I understand the need to protect people, on the other hand, how much is actually been done to Solve the Real problems. If mankind understood why crime was being done, they could take steps to prevent it rather than Controlling it after it gets loose.
As I see, in God's system of things, lessons are given long enough until there is true understanding of all sides. When one understands all sides, intelligence will make the best choices. There will come a point when laws will not exist simply because they will not be needed.
Perhaps, mankind should work at copying God. There is much to Learn and much to Teach others before the problem will no longer exist. It would be good for mankind to get started. Clearly, what they are doing now is not working.
What is more important? Payback or Solving the Real Problems and Fixing the People?
Which brings better results?
I understand it is a Large Task. On the other hand, even with baby steps, things will get better for everyone.