• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Writing of Laws Is A Dumb Thing To do

Stevicus

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
That's true in any situation that isn't pre-judged.

It would be a lot harder if you had no written laws to help evaluate whether or not you had broken the law in the first place though.

The more subjectivity exists, the greater the uncertainty.

My impression is that criminal law may be a bit more cut-and-dried. Actually proving it might present some hurdles, but in the end, it's simply a matter of determining whether the defendant actually committed the crime or didn't commit the crime. But in civil cases, that's harder to peg.

I recall one case that made the local news where a drunk driver ran over a 13-year-old boy on a bicycle. She was already found guilty in the criminal case against her, but then there was a wrongful death lawsuit as well. In the end, she was found 60% responsible, while the owner of the bar she was drinking at was considered 30% responsible, and the city was 10% responsible for poor lighting and no bike lane where the boy was hit.

I wondered whether there was some scientific or mathematical formula that they used to figure all this out.

Written legal codes, particularly regarding regulations, do often encourage gaming the system. Effective defence lawyers do often find technicalities or precedences that they can use in their favour.

There's certainly a very good case for simplifying many aspects of the legal system.

I agree, and I would also suggest that it might behoove the politicians and those in the legal system to try to restore some semblance of faith in the system. I can sense that there's some degree of irritation and disappointment from certain circles that not everyone believes wholeheartedly in our political and legal systems, nor gives proper deference to the agencies in their employ.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
What are your opinions on the integrity of the US Supreme Court (not on the laws they judge)?

Do you believe they fundamentally aim at fair and impartial judgement, or do you believe they are somewhat partisan at times?
They are appointed by partisan politicians who happen to be in power when a member dies. It's only a nine-member panel, so that makes it easy to "pack" the court and create a bias for a conservative or liberal bias depending on which flavor happens to hold the power when replacements are needed.

Integrity isn't a problem, IMO. But these justices have biases that affect their judgments and it only takes one vote to swing a 5-4 vote. A 33-member panel, selected randomly by computer from a list of qualified applicants would make more sense.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
...I recall one case that made the local news where a drunk driver ran over a 13-year-old boy on a bicycle. She was already found guilty in the criminal case against her, but then there was a wrongful death lawsuit as well. In the end, she was found 60% responsible, while the owner of the bar she was drinking at was considered 30% responsible, and the city was 10% responsible for poor lighting and no bike lane where the boy was hit.

I wondered whether there was some scientific or mathematical formula that they used to figure all this out.
It's unusual to see negligence divided this way.

If the case got to trial in the USA, the judgment would have been made by a jury of 12 ordinary citizens with no expertise or formula. But, it's more likely that the insurance companies involved negotiated the settlement split before trial and the cost will be passed along to the public in the form of higher premiums.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
You didn't say it but, by logical deduction, you implied it. I explained that in the first paragraph of the post you quoted. But let's resolve this another way:

If you agree that people don't trust the existing system, why do you think that they would need the equivalent of case law, as in the existing flawed system, in order to trust the decisions of expert panels?

It seems obvious to me that the goal of any decision-making system should be to make the correct decisions as consistently as possible. Wouldn't you agree? I also think that the goal of a criminal justice system ought to be to protect innocent citizens from harm. Our system in the USA, which I understand is the same in the UK, sets different goals.

Ours is based on the Blackstone formulation which aims at not convicting the innocent. And while that sounds like a worthy goal, it results in a body of laws that make it difficult to convict the guilty as well -- which undermines the goal of protecting the public as well as the goal of consistently making the correct decisions.

The Blackstone formulation also results in these side effects:

1. A system that doesn't take the criminals off the streets creates vigilantes among its citizens.

2. Law enforcement people and prosecutors feel justified in cheating to get convictions of the people they think are guilty.

3. Amateur juries can be manipulated by sharp lawyers so they can't be trusted to make the right decision.

4. And because juries can't be trusted to make the right decisions, prosecutors can coerce innocent defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges by threatening far more severe charges.

So, ironically, a Blackstone system that begins with the goal of not convicting innocent people often ends with innocent people being coerced to plead guilty while the system undermines the goal of protecting the public.

The Guardian had this article about the UK system back in April.

The UK justice system is in meltdown. When will the government act? | Simon Jenkins
To take Simon Jenkins first, if you read that article it does not identify the existence of written laws as any part of the problem, nor does it suggest lack of trust in the decisions reached by the courts. The problems are with the police, the prisons and the issues I described in the UK court system. So that article provides no evidence in favour of your ideas.

I have already explained to you that your panels will inevitably produce a body of case law that they will find themselves referring to.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
To take Simon Jenkins first, if you read that article it does not identify the existence of written laws as any part of the problem, nor does it suggest lack of trust in the decisions reached by the courts. The problems are with the police, the prisons and the issues I described in the UK court system. So that article provides no evidence in favour of your ideas.
You wrote that it was your impression the citizens of the UK were satisfied with their system. The article casts doubt on your opinion.

I have already explained to you that your panels will inevitably produce a body of case law that they will find themselves referring to.
Your opinion on that point is noted but you don't offer a reason to support it. If you have one, what is it?

However, the other point you made was that the equivalent to case law would be necessary to gain the trust of the public. That claim makes no sense because the current system has case law and citizens don't trust it.
 
Top