Comments on: Law vs. Justice

By: Steven

Steven — Wed, 25 Jan 2012 21:44:50 +0000

Law MUST have equal consideration for justice!
EVERY written law has a justifiable contradiction to that law.
Popular examples; “Justifiable homoside”, “Self defence”.
Justice is the punishment fitting the crime.
Justice is the application of the law fitting the circumstances of the crime.
There is no JUSTICE in a decision of inocence or guilt by a jury of your peers!
There is no Justice when a court appointed lawyer does not have equal resourses available to those of the state.

By: George

George — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 05:01:12 +0000

Today I read a news article stating that a 16 year old boy in Cobb County Georgia made a left turn while going to the doctor and was struck by two cars on the passenger side killing his mother. It is reported that a large truck blocked his view The police charged him with vehicular homicide for killing his mother. The authorities said that is the law and they have to follow the law.

In the comments section following the article I wrote that “it might be the law, but it is not justice. The kid lost his mother and that is a life sentence of sadness for him to carry on his shoulders.”

After posting that I started thinking about what I wrote about “Law Vs Justice” and got curious to see if any body else had any thoughts on that idea and found this article at GOOGLE:

I am neither a lawyer, nor law enforcement officer, yet I could almost feel what the author of this article wrote without realizing it.

I spent 50 years in the aviation business, but thinking back on it I think I would have rather been a lawyer.

By: Humean Lawyering for Humans | Notes

Humean Lawyering for Humans | Notes — Sun, 23 Aug 2009 18:34:49 +0000

[...] Judges are forced to make important decisions every day. Even when it seems like they can make those decisions by the application of settled law, they have to rely on their human experience. I recently appeared before a judge who made a decision in my favor by pulling out her code book, reading from a statute that appeared to compel a certain outcome, and telling the other attorney that she had no discretion to do otherwise. To the untrained eye, this judge was acting as a decision-machine, applying the law without recourse to experience or empathy. Experts might see if differently. Since that decision, the other attorney has twice observed that the judge was wrong about the law, and he is probably right. But we had a unique situation, where the opposite decision was probably going to be a greater hassle and expense for everyone involved. How could the judge have known that, except for her experience of humanity and her empathy with the people involved—which clearly encompassed both parties and their attorneys? You might say her decision was wrong on the law, but right on the facts—and just about every time a judge faces a potential split like that, she is probably going to choose the outcome that is right on the facts. In previous essays, I have called that justice. [...]

By: Justice is Human and so are Judges | Notes

Justice is Human and so are Judges | Notes — Mon, 13 Jul 2009 22:52:55 +0000

[...] for people, whose ideas about what should happen in court are hardly a rock of consistency. As I wrote a couple months ago: Most people want justice for themselves, but they want the law applied to others. Law simplifies [...]

By: Adam

Adam — Sat, 09 May 2009 02:20:05 +0000

This is true but I feel like, and maybe this is just adult onset cyncism, it’s always been shrill to some degree. You know?

I mean, when I was a kid, authority figures were unquestionable. Maybe that’s a feature of the kind of authoritarian upbringing I had, but as a kid, it’s much simpler and the President seems like an infallible person. And Senators and Reps and other public officials were much the same way. Shoot, ask me elementary school if politicians are bad and I might have been able to spit out Nixon’s name.

But then you grow up and realize that it’s all messed up people, because we’re all messed up people in one way or another.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:26:42 +0000

We would have a much more productive political discourse if people weren’t so shrill with their pronouncements.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 08 May 2009 23:15:45 +0000

It’s kinda weird growing up and discovering that I’m not surprised that people who say things as absurd as Michael Steele can indeed be the leader of a group as large and prominent as the GOP.

How sad for them that they find themselves split between this jackass and Rush Limbaugh.

By: Peter

Peter — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:28:49 +0000

He sounds like somebody who has never had to argue or decide a tough legal question. And the question is not whether the judge is "feeling bad" for one of the parties or "short-changing" the other. When a judge is wondering how to do justice, the question is not, "How can I help the person whose circumstances are more sympathetic?" Instead, the judge is asking, "How can I uphold the rule of law without coming to a result that's absurd, or that gives people the impression that rules applied technically and dispassionately can be 'gamed' by wily litigants?" If judges did what Michael Steele apparently wants them to do, the concept of "loopholes" and "technicalities" would be more prominent in jurisprudence. And then, when application of those loopholes and technicalities results in injustice, "conservative" wags like Michael Steele will still complain. On the other hand, if more people seriously took up the problem I sketched out in this post, instead of dismissing it as esoteric or merely philosophical, then we could have a serious conversation about the purpose of law and the role of courts in our society. When people understand not only why we have certain obligations, but how those obligations will play out as they conduct their lives, we might have a society even more civil than the one we have today. (Which, despite all the raging idiots that seem to froth up at every turn, is among the most civil societies in the world.)

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:12:44 +0000

Of course. He says that until a judge empathizes with his position and then I’m sure he’s happy about it.

By: Adam

Adam — Fri, 08 May 2009 22:11:37 +0000

Oh ho ho! Michael Steele begs to differ with you. He had some words in response to Obama’s statement about choosing a Justice. Must be one of those compassionate conservatives…yeah:

“I don’t need some judge sitting up there feeling bad for my opponent because of their life circumstances or their condition, and short-changing me and my opportunity to get fair treatment under the law! Crazy nonsense empathetic. I’ll give you empathy. Empathize right on your behind. Craziness.”