The Writing of Laws Is A Dumb Thing To do

[Augustus]

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

They don't use jury trials for most legal decisions as jury trials, if they exist, are mainly for serious criminal cases.

Many (most?) legal decisions aren't even made in court.

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

Satire is not "in lieu of debate", it is using humour to make a serious point.

The point being, your ideas are impractical in a modern nation state, as evidenced by your inability to move beyond the lowest-hanging of all fruit.

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

I'll judge it on its merits and promise I'll give you a serious response.

So what is your mission statement to replace immigration law? Or road traffic laws, seeing as specificity is pretty important when it comes to road traffic laws.

 

[joe1776]

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.

The expert panelists I have in mind would be as intelligent as most judges and more specialized in the kind of decisions they are asked to consider. So, your doubt about their expertise is only evidence for me that I have failed in being understood.

Judges are experts in the law and would be likely to follow the law even when it conflicts with conscience. For example, in the USA, the very same killing might be considered justifiable self-defense in one state but a criminal act in the neighboring state. Given the same facts, if he ignored his conscience, the same judge would render a different verdict if he sat on the bench of another state.

One judge alone, as in UK civil law, is more likely to have his judgment affected by bias than a panel of say 17 experts on the civil case.

 

[exchemist]

The expert panelists I have in mind would be as intelligent as most judges and more specialized in the kind of decisions they are asked to consider. So, your doubt about their expertise is only evidence for me that I have failed in being understood.

Judges are experts in the law and would be likely to follow the law even when it conflicts with conscience. For example, in the USA, the very same killing might be considered justifiable self-defense in one state but a criminal act in the neighboring state. Given the same facts, if he ignored his conscience, the same judge would render a different verdict if he sat on the bench of another state.

One judge alone, as in UK civil law, is more likely to have his judgment affected by bias than a panel of say 17 experts on the civil case.

How would these panellists be more expert than a judge in the kind of cases they are asked to consider, unless they are, in effect, judges? Can you give an example of how you see this working?

As for bias by an individual judge, that is why there is an appeal system.

 

[joe1776]

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.

How much of a struggle is it for you to imagine the training in investigative techniques and forensic sciences? Is it a struggle for you to imagine how the training might use old cases to instruct? Panelists "thought to be intelligent?" Are you doubting that intelligence can be tested and measured?

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.

In the USA, the conscience of juries quite often conflicts with the law. It's called "jury nullification" and it happens often enough that each state has laws on what to do when it happens.

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.

Augustus's argument is pure baloney. The average lawyer couldn't tell you what the law is in his state on any topic except his area of expertise. And, if he crosses the state line, he's no longer an expert on the law on any topic. The average citizen is guided by conscience --- and that's enough to discern right from wrong.

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.

I'm interested in your debate points not your unsupported opinions.

 

[joe1776]

How would these panellists be more expert than a judge in the kind of cases they are asked to consider, unless they are, in effect, judges? Can you give an example of how you see this working?

In the USA, court trials are time-consuming affairs and judges don't specialize as a rule. The panelist I have in mind would be equal to judges in intellect but have more time to devote to their area of expertise than most judges.

The judges area of expertise is in the law...which I regard as less than useless because, when laws conflict with conscience, they are biases which, if followed, lead to injustice.

 

[exchemist]

How much of a struggle is it for you to imagine the training in investigative techniques and forensic sciences? Is it a struggle for you to imagine how the training might use old cases to instruct? Panelists "thought to be intelligent?" Are you doubting that intelligence can be tested and measured?

In the USA, the conscience of juries quite often conflicts with the law. It's called "jury nullification" and it happens often enough that each state has laws on what to do when it happens.

Augustus's argument is pure baloney. The average lawyer couldn't tell you what the law is in his state on any topic except his area of expertise. And, if he crosses the state line, he's no longer an expert on the law on any topic.

I'm interested in your debate points not your unsupported opinions.

I do not believe you can get your experts to the requisite level of expertise unless they are full time. At which point they are judges.

And yes I do doubt there is any objective measure of intelligence. Every measure that has been used has been found to contain bias.

Finally, the fact that you think lawyers only know the law in their area does not address Augustus's point. If there is no written law, there is no possible way, even in principle, for anyone to know the boundaries between legal and illegal conduct. It is intrinsically arbitrary, depending on who is on your panel on the day. They can make it up as they go along and can be as inconsistent at they like, from one occasion to the next.

Or will you allow written records of their proceedings, to ensure consistency? If you do that, you already have a case law system.

 

[Spirit of Light]

In the USA, court trials are time-consuming affairs and judges don't specialize as a rule. The panelist I have in mind would be equal to judges in intellect but have more time to devote to their area of expertise than most judges.

The judges area of expertise is in the law...which I regard as less than useless because, when laws conflict with conscience, they are biases which, if followed, lead to injustice.

Dont you forget that judges actually have all evidence available to them before making a decision on guilty or not, Judges have a long education in how to read the evidence. how come they are not qualified to see the truth in a case?

 

[joe1776]

I'll judge it on its merits and promise I'll give you a serious response.

So what is your mission statement to replace immigration law? Or road traffic laws, seeing as specificity is pretty important when it comes to road traffic laws.

You're obviously biased. I can't imagine any scenario where you'd be capable of judging fairly.

Have we ever agreed on anything?

 

[joe1776]

I do not believe you can get your experts to the requisite level of expertise unless they are full time. At which point they are judges.

Yes, they are full-time. I guess I didn't make that clear. I call them expert panelists. If you'd rather call them judges, it's fine with me but the word judges to me implies people who interpret laws.

And yes I do doubt there is any objective measure of intelligence. Every measure that has been used has been found to contain bias.

In the USA, law schools have been using the LSAT standardized test to screen the applicants for law school. So, that test could be used. I don't care.

Finally, the fact that you think lawyers only know the law in their area does not address Augustus's point. If there is no written law, there is no possible way, even in principle, for anyone to know the boundaries between legal and illegal conduct. It is intrinsically arbitrary, depending on who is on your panel on the day. They can make it up as they go along and can be as inconsistent at they like, from one occasion to the next.

You wrote "it is impossible for a citizen to know what is legal conduct and what isn't." I pointed out that not even lawyers know what is legal conduct and what isn't (except in their area of expertise). So, the notion that lawmaking is justified so that average citizens know what's legal and what isn't is absurd.

Or will you allow written records of their proceedings, to ensure consistency? If you do that, you already have a case law system.

I foresee the discussion and debate of the expert panels being done online and in writing just as we're doing here. Calling that a "case law system" is what I call "argument by labeling." Call it that if you want but law writing isn't involved.

 

[joe1776]

Dont you forget that judges actually have all evidence available to them before making a decision on guilty or not, Judges have a long education in how to read the evidence. how come they are not qualified to see the truth in a case?

One judge making a judgment is more likely to make biased judgments than a group of judges because it's less likely that they all hold the same bias.

Furthermore the law itself can become a bias because the laws were written by people in the past with no knowledge of the facts in case at hand.

 

[Spirit of Light]

One person making a judgment is more likely to make biased judgments than a group of judges because it's less likely that they all hold the same bias.

Furthermore the law itself can become a bias because the laws were written by people in the past with no knowledge of the facts in case at hand.

So do you want a lawless system? Or how do you think a different group will hand it better than those who studied law for 6-7 years and who have often been working as a lawyer before they become a judge? why would they be biased?

 

[joe1776]

So do you want a lawless system? Or how do you think a different group will hand it better than those who studied law for 6-7 years and who have often been working as a lawyer before they become a judge? why would they be biased?

In my opinion, laws are less than useless because they sometimes mislead. They sometimes mislead because the writers of the law could not possibly foresee the situations which happen in an almost infinite variety.

So, you see, that experience you write about.. "those who studied law for 6-7 years" is valuable experience in your opinion but wasted time in my opinion.

 

[Spirit of Light]

In my opinion, laws are less than useless because they sometimes mislead. They sometimes mislead because the writers of the law could not possibly foresee the situations which happen in an almost infinite variety.

So, you see, that experience you write about.. "those who studied law for 6-7 years" is valuable experience in your opinion but wasted time in my opinion.

So a country without laws would be?

 

[joe1776]

So a country without laws would be?

A country without laws in which the public policy decisions were made by highly intelligent expert panels would produce the highest quality of life on this planet, one free of corruption and incompetence in governing.

 

[Spirit of Light]

A country without laws in which the public policy decisions were made by highly intelligent expert panels would produce the highest quality of life on this planet, one free of corruption and incompetence in governing.

So how often would the laws have to be changed because they become "out of date"?
If you look at USA today and how Trump is destroying America, then you know how a lawless country would work.
And by the way, there are many laws that are changed regularly or "updated" to fit our time instead of when they were written. If i remember right America was founded by white men in 1779 or something, and yes law has been changed many times over since that time.

Norway, where i live, was founded in 1814 as the current version of this country. Ad yes law here too has changed many times over. Sometimes because of a new kind of illegal thigs was done. or new crime forms were created.
So eve Judges and lawyers do update themself on new laws every year

 

[joe1776]

So how often would the laws have to be changed because they become "out of date"?

Laws are unnecessary. When a new policy is created, an expert panel is created to deal with the future decisions it will cause.

If you look at USA today and how Trump is destroying America, then you know how a lawless country would work.

You are confusing the issue by using two meanings for the word "lawless." I think laws are unnecessary. You speak of people acting immorally as "lawless."

And by the way, there are many laws that are changed regularly or "updated" to fit our time instead of when they were written. If i remember right America was founded by white men in 1779 or something, and yes law has been changed many times over since that time.

Yes, some have been updated but that doesn't make laws useful in the cause of justice. The very fact that they have been updated is evidence that the original law must have caused injustice.

 

[Spirit of Light]

Laws are unnecessary. When a new policy is created, an expert panel is created to deal with the decisions it will cause.

You are confusing the issue by using two meanings for the word "lawless." I think laws are unnecessary. You speak of people acting immorally as "lawless."

Yes, some have been updated but that doesn't make them useful in the cause of justice. The very fact that they have been updated is evidence that the original law must have caused injustice.

Ok we clearly not agree on this subject but that's ok.

 

[Valjean]

One judge making a judgment is more likely to make biased judgments than a group of judges because it's less likely that they all hold the same bias.

Unless, of course, they're installed by the same legislators, beholden to special interests, or threatened by the powers-that-be.

Furthermore the law itself can become a bias because the laws were written by people in the past with no knowledge of the facts in case at hand.

Quite so. Moreover, they're written to maintain an obsolete social order, system of propriety and socioeconomic hierarchy.

 

[joe1776]

Unless, of course, they're installed by the same legislators, beholden to special interests, or threatened by the powers-that-be.

Right. That's possible.

Quite so. Moreover, they're written to maintain an obsolete social order, system of propriety and socioeconomic hierarchy.

Indeed they are.

 

[Augustus]

You're obviously biased. I can't imagine any scenario where you'd be capable of judging fairly.

Why would I be 'biased' rather than simply rejecting a poorly reasoned and completely unworkable idea?

I had no opinion on the topic until you raised it and you made no attempt to explain how it would work in the vast majority of cases: those which aren't about obvious criminal wrongdoing like murder, violence, etc.

But seeing as you are unable to explain these, there's nothing much to judge.

Have we ever agreed on anything?

Well you've never been able to present any scientists who agree with your overall thesis either, so it might not be me who is the unreasonably biased one

Augustus's argument is pure baloney. The average lawyer couldn't tell you what the law is in his state on any topic except his area of expertise. And, if he crosses the state line, he's no longer an expert on the law on any topic. The average citizen is guided by conscience --- and that's enough to discern right from wrong.

You don't seem to grasp that most laws don't relate to simple right/wrong.

When people are considering how much alcohol can be in the blood and still legally drive, they don't use their conscience.
When you need to know how fast you can drive on different roads, you don't use your conscience.
When you need to plan how many fire escapes to put in a hotel, you don't use your conscience.
When you want to know if you can hire an employee who is not a citizen of your country, you don't use your conscience.
When a bailiff is trying to recover a debt and needs to know what they can legally do, they don't use their conscience.
When companies who are considering a public offering need to know their legal obligations that result from this, they don't use their conscience.
etc.