• 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!

Laws Are Foolish Attempts to Micro-Manage Future Judgments

joe1776

Well-Known Member
The constitution can be amended. Its a slow process, but it does get amendments. The courts may also interpret it and reinterpret it.
This method of correcting the weaknesses in the original law wouldn't be necessary if judgments were made by contemporary expert panels which have all the facts in actual cases.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
This method of correcting the weaknesses in the original law wouldn't be necessary if judgments were made by contemporary expert panels which have all the facts in actual cases.
Why have completely useless panels on the payroll?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
OK I was talking about UK civil law.
It's easier for me to point out the Blackstone Bias in criminal law. However, the contemporary expert panel combined with the concept of binding arbitration would make better judgments in civil cases than legislators in 1886 who never heard the facts in the actual case.

If one considers criminal law, as you seem to want to do, the criterion quite rightly is proof beyond reasonable doubt, not just balance of probability. This is because a criminal record is a seriously damaging thing to saddle a person with for the rest of his life, and because the sentence may often deprive him of his liberty.
Requiring a two-thirds majority of the panel would achieve the same aim. This would avoid the vagueness of the reasonable doubt concept.

So even here, the most serious offences are felt to need the involvement of the public, in order to ensure justice is seen to be done by the people and not just by an elite who could be subject to state or other influence (bribery, inappropriate friendships, institutional "capture" by the police, etc.).
If you were falsely charged with a crime, would you want amateur jurors with an average IQ making the decision? A jury of experts, randomly selected by computer, would be my choice because I want them to make the right decision. If I was guilty, I'd opt for the kind of system you describe because I'm hoping it errs.

What it comes down to is that the exercise of the law has to be done in a way that the citizens can buy into as truly impartial. Your notion of expert panels would be immediately open to all sorts of challenge.
The panel members would first be tested on IQ. They would then be trained in a specialty and then randomly selected by computer for a particular case. They would not be instructed by judges or under the influence of the prosecution as amateur jurors are in the current system.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
That's an absurd demand. If you have a point to make, please make it clearly so that we can move on.
Actually, it is right to the point showing a major problem with your plan of having all the facts available before your panel can do anything.

I mean, if asking for even one case be presented that had all the facts is such an absurd request, how can you expect anyone to take your overhaul seriously?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Actually, it is right to the point showing a major problem with your plan of having all the facts available before your panel can do anything.

I mean, if asking for even one case be presented that had all the facts is such an absurd request, how can you expect anyone to take your overhaul seriously?
I said nothing about having all the facts. I said the contemporary panels would have the actual facts in a case (as opposed to law makers who don't have them).
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
I said nothing about having all the facts. I said the contemporary panels would have the actual facts in a case (as opposed to law makers who don't have them).
Um...
Yes you did:
This method of correcting the weaknesses in the original law wouldn't be necessary if judgments were made by contemporary expert panels which have all the facts in actual cases.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Um...
Yes you did:
OK. I used the word "all" in that response to a post about a constitutional amendment to point out that the writers of the Constitution didn't have all the relevant facts from our era in their era.

There is no greater demand for facts in my plan than there is in the current system. The essential difference is that in mine decisions are based on the actual facts of the case.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
OK. I used the word "all" in that response to a post about a constitutional amendment to point out that the writers of the Constitution didn't have all the relevant facts from our era in their era.
Fair enough.

There is no greater demand for facts in my plan than there is in the current system.
Shouldn't there be?
How many cases were tried on innuendo and in some cases out right bull **** when the facts were not available?
How many cases had pertinent facts tossed out do to some legal mumbo jumbo?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Fair enough.


Shouldn't there be?
How many cases were tried on innuendo and in some cases out right bull **** when the facts were not available?
How many cases had pertinent facts tossed out do to some legal mumbo jumbo?
The current system demands all the important, relevant facts. We can't improve on that goal but we can improve on the the quality of the judgments.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
The current system demands all the important, relevant facts. We can't improve on that goal but we can improve on the the quality of the judgments.
Except the two examples of important relevant facts being missing or tossed out indicates otherwise.

Never mind me.
I was merely curious about the "all the facts" thing.

I do not mean to side track your thread.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
It's easier for me to point out the Blackstone Bias in criminal law. However, the contemporary expert panel combined with the concept of binding arbitration would make better judgments in civil cases than legislators in 1886 who never heard the facts in the actual case.

Requiring a two-thirds majority of the panel would achieve the same aim. This would avoid the vagueness of the reasonable doubt concept.

If you were falsely charged with a crime, would you want amateur jurors with an average IQ making the decision? A jury of experts, randomly selected by computer, would be my choice because I want them to make the right decision. If I was guilty, I'd opt for the kind of system you describe because I'm hoping it errs.

The panel members would first be tested on IQ. They would then be trained in a specialty and then randomly selected by computer for a particular case. They would not be instructed by judges or under the influence of the prosecution as amateur jurors are in the current system.
If I were, say a muslim in the US charged with terrorism, or a climate change protestor charged with obstruction or criminal damage or something, I would certainly prefer to be judged by random people, using a stiff criterion of proof, rather than by potential agents of the state, which these experts would in practice be.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
If I were, say a muslim in the US charged with terrorism, or a climate change protestor charged with obstruction or criminal damage or something, I would certainly prefer to be judged by random people, using a stiff criterion of proof, rather than by potential agents of the state, which these experts would in practice be.
In the current system these random people of which you speak aren't going to be allowed to make judgments without instruction by the judges on the laws of the state. They will be also be influenced by the state prosecutor.

In my plan, there are no state laws and no prosecutors. The expert panel would guide the investigation of the case and render judgments which would then be available for public review.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
In the current system these random people of which you speak aren't going to be allowed to make judgments without instruction by the judges on the laws of the state. They will be also be influenced by the state prosecutor.

In my plan, there are no state laws and no prosecutors. The expert panel would guide the investigation of the case and render judgments which would then be available for public review.
If there are no laws, you have no police, no arrests and no cases to try.
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
If there are no laws, you have no police, no arrests and no cases to try.
We'd have the same police and the same cases we have now. For example if someone was killed, a criminal justice panel would direct an investigation to discover the facts of the case. Then it would judge the case on its facts to determine if the killing was justified or unjustified.

A brief public mission statement declaring the state's duty to protect innocent citizens from serious intentional harm would probably be found necessary to cover all manner of crimes.
 
Last edited:

exchemist

Veteran Member
We'd have the same cases we have now. For example if someone was killed, a criminal justice panel would direct an investigation to discover the facts of the case. Then it would judge the case on its facts to determine if the killing was justified or unjustified.

A brief mission statement declaring the state's duty to protect innocent citizens from serious intentional harm would probably be found necessary.
No. You don't seem to understand my point. Without laws, you would have NO POLICE.

There would be no rules for any police force to follow, to tell them the grounds for arresting someone for breaking the law. So no police force could operate.

Or do you envisage that the police should be allowed to roam around, arresting anyone they felt like arresting, without any specific rules for doing it?
 

joe1776

Well-Known Member
No. You don't seem to understand my point. Without laws, you would have NO POLICE.

There would be no rules for any police force to follow, to tell them the grounds for arresting someone for breaking the law. So no police force could operate.

Or do you envisage that the police should be allowed to roam around, arresting anyone they felt like arresting, without any specific rules for doing it?
I understood your point but you are envisioning a problem that doesn't exist since our current laws are based on conscience (moral intuition) and all humans own a conscience including the police. So, any act which offends their conscience and causes serious harm to someone innocent would be a probable criminal offense.

For example, it is conscience that informs us that an accidental killing, such as might happen in a traffic accident, is not a crime. To make it a crime would require that the act be done with the intent to harm. A killing using an automobile caused intentionally by road rage would be a crime. Legislators used their consciences to write these laws. The police have the very same moral intuition (consciences).
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
I understood your point but you are envisioning a problem that doesn't exist since our current laws are based on conscience (moral intuition) and all humans own a conscience including the police. So, any act which offends their conscience and causes serious harm to someone innocent would be a probable criminal offense.

For example, it is conscience that informs us that an accidental killing, such as might happen in a traffic accident, is not a crime. To make it a crime would require that the act be done with the intent to harm. A killing using an automobile caused by road rage would be a crime. Legislators used their consciences to write these laws. The police have the very same moral intuition (consciences).
That means you advocate a system of arbitrary arrest. Really?
 
Top