The Writing of Laws Is A Dumb Thing To do

[oldbadger]

There are lots of practical exceptions. Laws are supposed to be hierarchic, with county ordinances trumping city, state trumping county and federal trumping state. But there are several states here in the us where recreational marijuana is legal, even while it remains illegal under federal law.
Legal just means non-prosecutable. There's a whole, massive, legal organization dedicated to "legal" killing -- the military. Police kill people with disturbing regularity here, but they aren't often prosecuted. Why would they even be issued deadly weapons if they were not sanctioned to use them?
If a man breaks into your house and threatens you or your family with a gun, you may legally kill him, in most jurisdictions.
Raising the price of a vial of insulin by 15% each year, regardless of the cost of production?
Invading Iraq?
Prosecuting whistleblowers?
Guantanamo Bay prison?
I want people making decisions hierarchically, with morality -- consequences -- being the overriding consideration. Judges are charged with applying the letter of the law, which is inconsistent, capricious, mercurial, often unrelated to right and wrong and often counter productive.

Thank you for replying.

The above might show what a mess your particular country is in with regards to criminal law, that much seems to be evident. But you have shown that......... not me!

Where I live the word 'moral' is not used (afaik) in any crime descriptions. It gets thrown around a lot on RF, together with the other word 'spiritual', but of course both these words have fluid meanings......!

Where I live (ENGLAND) most crimes are DESCRIBED BY LEGISLATION.
North of here (SCOTLAND) they are not! COMMON LAW guides verdicts and judgements, based on the history of the people.

We do have some Common Law guidance in England, for instance the crime of 'Conduct likely to cause a breach of peace' is guided by Common Law. There is nio Common Law Act. There is no Murder Act here either.

And so the OP could choose whether to live under Common Law or Criminal Legislation....... just choose whicjh country.

Me? I prefer exactly described laws as we have in England (and Wales).

Take Theft. We have a Theft Act which exactly defines the act of stealing, and written in to this act are clear descriptions of kinds of Appropriation of Property which are Lawful........and this protects innocents who have to take other folk's property off them.

Under the OP's wishes, folks just would not know where they stood from one day to next, one action to next.

I can't comment on the USA...... that's for its citizens to tell us.

 

[oldbadger]

Laws are not general rules. They are attempts to write absolute rules to cover every possible future case -- which is impossible to do.
You can't imagine a clear case of a killing in self-defense on your own?
Why is that an omission in my argument?
Since the laws in the 50 US states are different, it's obvious that not all possible situations are covered in all 50 laws.

Did you miss my reference to expert panels?

Thank you for your reply.

Look, if you think your country's criminal laws are stupid then that's for you to say, but where I live we read reports (from your country) about how folks pull guns and shoot people during driving arguments, or street scuffles....... that might happen because you don't have any legislation about guns......... but let me tell you about the UK, OK?

In England most of our laws are described in close detail. We have written criminal acts. But we do use some Common Law.... we don't have a written down Murder Act, for instance, so that would please you, possibly?

In Scotland most laws are not described in exact written detail, most crimes are perceived by COMMON LAW, the history of crime from ages past.

So if you lived here, you could go North or South to suit your choice.

But unlike you I like exactly defined crimes! For instance our Theft Acts describe most kinds of theft exactly, and they also describe how the appropriation of other folks' property can (in special circumstances) be legal!

One example of hundreds:.............If I worked as a bailiff I would want to know EXACTLY where my actions would be Legal and Illegal. My knowledge of the law would PROTECT me.

In your World I would not dare to work as a Bailiff...... The same action would be lawful today, and Unlawful tomorrow, according to which idiots had been chosen to be Experts on any particular day.

Your Judges are supposed to be Experts, you know......

 

[exchemist]

I don't think it matters whether we're talking about case law or statutes. The false premise in the argument for writing laws is the presumption that lawmakers from the past can guide present day judgments better than a contemporary panel of experts given all the facts in an actual case.

The premise that lawmakers of today can write laws guiding judgments of future cases better than a future panel of experts who have the actual facts is also false.

In the OP, I wrote a brief task guideline statement for criminal justice case. The idea is to give future expert panels only broad guidelines that will allow them to make judgments based on the actual facts they encounter.

Case law is not based on "writing laws". I'm not sure what advantage your "panel of experts" has over the panels of judges we use today to resolve points of law. Can you explain how it would differ?

 

[Augustus]

All the above are policy questions which can be handled by expert panels rather than courts and laws. For example, the expert panel on fair elections would make all policy decisions regarding elections. Writing laws would only induce lawyers to look for loopholes to legally cheat.

Expert panels that would need to produce standardised, written guidelines that could be applied in general cases and taught to others that are functionally equivalent to laws.

If they weren't standardised and written down:

How would workers know their rights?
How would we know who should be allowed to run businesses and own property in your country?
How would foreign companies wanting to invest in your country know what responsibilities, liabilities, regulations affect them?
How would we know the acceptable blood alcohol limit for driving?
How would airlines know the safety regulations they must follow?

You can't leave people guessing at the laws the must follow, and guessing at the protections and responsibilities they have.

 

[joe1776]

One example of hundreds:.............If I worked as a bailiff I would want to know EXACTLY where my actions would be Legal and Illegal. My knowledge of the law would PROTECT me.

If you were trained as a bailiff would you not learn what actions might harm others? And wouldn't you refrain from those actions out of decency?

And bear in mind, in suggesting that laws are useless, I'm also suggesting that an expert panels would sit in judgment as opposed to amateur juries and courts interpreting laws.

You mentioned our gun laws. The issue is an example of the weakness of laws in general. The National Rifle Association (NRA) rests its case on an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. This is a good example of how the law can be used to defeat the common sense arguments made for the protection of the public.

 

[joe1776]

Case law is not based on "writing laws". I'm not sure what advantage your "panel of experts" has over the panels of judges we use today to resolve points of law. Can you explain how it would differ?

The expert panels would make judgments on civil and criminal cases unhindered by laws which are attempts to guide decisions in future case which happen in an almost infinite variety.

The panel members would be as intelligent as any lawmaker but would have only one case to consider, one within their area of expertise, at any given time

 

[joe1776]

Expert panels that would need to produce standardised, written guidelines that could be applied in general cases and taught to others that are functionally equivalent to laws.

Governments would still create policies and those policies would still be published in a form that clearly explains the intent of the policy in plain language.

The public would have a better understanding of public policy than they do now because the publication would be written for them. In our current system, the only human beings who understand our laws on any particular topic are the lawyers who make that topic their specialty.

 

[Augustus]

Governments would still create policies and those policies would still be published in a form that clearly explains the intent of the policy in plain language.

The public would have a better understanding of public policy than they do now because the publication would be written for them. In our current system, the only human beings who understand our laws on any particular topic are the lawyers who make that topic their specialty.

So, basically, you want laws, but rewritten to simplify, being adjudicated by experts (which, excepting jury trials, is what happens now).

 

[exchemist]

The expert panels would make judgments on civil and criminal cases unhindered by laws which are attempts to guide decisions in future case which happen in an almost infinite variety.

The panel members would be as intelligent as any lawmaker but would have only one case to consider, one within their area of expertise, at any given time

So on what basis would society be expected to respect their judgements?

 

[joe1776]

So, basically, you want laws, but rewritten to simplify, being adjudicated by experts (which, excepting jury trials, is what happens now).

Excepting jury trials? Is that your way of minimizing the fact that most civil and criminal actions in the USA are now decided by amateur juries of average intelligence given on-the-job training in forensics, investigative techniques, and so on?

And please quote me. What did I write to give you the idea that I'd want laws rewritten?

 

[joe1776]

So on what basis would society be expected to respect their judgements?

In the USA, most juries are citizens plucked from lists of licensed drivers, voter registration, etc. This all but guarantees that the average IQ of a jury will hover at about 100. Moreover, they are given on-the-job training.

Members of expert panels can be plucked randomly by computer from a list of high scorers on a standardized test of intelligence and then given specific training. For example, a panel that judges murder cases would be trained and kept abreast in the forensic sciences and investigative techniques.

So, if you were falsely charged with murder, you'd want the decision made by the system most likely to get the right answer: innocent.

So, which group would you want to hear your case? The amateur jury or the smarter group of trained experts?

 

[LuisDantas]

Laws tend to be grossly over-estimated.

They have no significant moral value, and as a matter of fact tend to be superb tools to hinder moral development.

Why? Because their true role, despite a lot of claims to the contrary, is establishing what the applicable authorities are willing to encourage and to discourage, and to which degree and with which consequence.

They are all about expectations, obedience, encouragement and punishment. Nothing more, nothing less.

They do not emanate wisdom, let alone morality. And relying too much on them serves only to widen the reach of those who are willing and able to take advantage of them for their own goals, regardless of any possible good intentions.

 

[Augustus]

Excepting jury trials? Is that your way of minimizing the fact that most civil and criminal actions in the USA are now decided by amateur juries of average intelligence given on-the-job training in forensics, investigative techniques, and so on?

No idea about America, but in most countries the majority of legal judgements don't involve juries

And please quote me. What did I write to give you the idea that I'd want laws rewritten?

Governments would still create policies and those policies would still be published in a form that clearly explains the intent of the policy in plain language.

 

[oldbadger]

If you were trained as a bailiff would you not learn what actions might harm others? And wouldn't you refrain from those actions out of decency?

And bear in mind, in suggesting that laws are useless, I'm also suggesting that an expert panels would sit in judgment as opposed to amateur juries and courts interpreting laws.

You mentioned our gun laws. The issue is an example of the weakness of laws in general. The National Rifle Association (NRA) rests its case on an interpretation of the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution. This is a good example of how the law can be used to defeat the common sense arguments made for the protection of the public.

I was not a trained bailiff, but I can tell you absolutely that unless specific definitions of laws were enacted that I certainly would not work on private security, bankruptcy, door supervision, CVIT, or any other private sector security work.

But because the law is mostly written, described, defined and enacted here, then such work is slightly safer.

Good luck with unwritten laws, decided casebycase by so called experts. How scary!

 

[joe1776]

No idea about America, but in most countries the majority of legal judgements don't involve juries

You're claiming knowledge of the legal systems in "most countries" but you have no idea about America?

The quote you supplied didn't support your interpretation that I wanted to rewrite laws. In fact, in the OP, I gave you an example of how a one paragraph task guideline statement could replace a huge body of criminal law. Here it is again:

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.

 

[Augustus]

You're claiming knowledge of the legal systems in "most countries" but you have no idea about America?

Do you really think most legal decisions around the world are made by juries?

The quote you supplied didn't support your interpretation that I wanted to rewrite laws. In fact, in the OP, I gave you an example of how a one paragraph task guideline statement could replace a huge body of criminal law. Here it is again:

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.

A vague fuzzy statement of values isn't going to work in most situations (outside of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure).

Can you write a guideline statement for immigration law or road traffic law?

 

[exchemist]

In the USA, most juries are citizens plucked from lists of licensed drivers, voter registration, etc. This all but guarantees that the average IQ of a jury will hover at about 100. Moreover, they are given on-the-job training.

Members of expert panels can be plucked randomly by computer from a list of high scorers on a standardized test of intelligence and then given specific training. For example, a panel that judges murder cases would be trained and kept abreast in the forensic sciences and investigative techniques.

So, if you were falsely charged with murder, you'd want the decision made by the system most likely to get the right answer: innocent.

So, which group would you want to hear your case? The amateur jury or the smarter group of trained experts?

I would want my case to be supervised by a judge who knows the law and can instruct a jury, or even by a judge alone, as in UK civil law, but not by some bunch of "experts", who are not expert at all.

 

[joe1776]

...
Good luck with unwritten laws, decided casebycase by so called experts. How scary!

So-called experts?

Call me silly but I find it easier to believe in the expertise of highly intelligent people, trained for the task, and with full knowledge of the case at hand, to make better decisions than lawmakers, mostly long dead, who, lacking crystal balls, had no clue of the facts of the case to be judged.

 

[joe1776]

Do you really think most legal decisions around the world are made by juries?

I don't claim to know how the legal systems operate in most countries.

A vague fuzzy statement of values isn't going to work in most situations (outside of Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure).

Ah, ridicule in lieu of debate. A sign of frustration.

Can you write a guideline statement for immigration law or road traffic law?

Of course I can. But can I write one that you can't ridicule? Nope. That's beyond my abilities.

 

[exchemist]

So-called experts?

Call me silly but I find it easier to believe in the expertise of highly intelligent people, trained for the task, and with full knowledge of the case at hand, to make better decisions than lawmakers, mostly long dead, who, lacking crystal balls, had no clue of the facts of the case to be judged.

Yes, so-called experts. Your idea involves selecting non-specialist people thought to be intelligent and given some sort of brief training. What sort of training this can be, if there are no written laws, I struggle to imagine.

You seem to think, quite wrongly, that laws prevent judges and juries taking the facts of a case into account. This is perfectly ridiculous. The justice system works very well in many countries. I know of no country that operates without written law, not least for the excellent reason given by Augustus, namely that, without it, it is impossible for a citizen to know what is legal conduct and what isn't.

The system you propose would thus be one of arbitrary justice, administered by people with no experience. The population would never accept it and anarchy would be the result.