Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
I had a frightening discussion with an expert in the Philosophy of Law recently.

Most people assume justice is a moral concept. But in legal terms it's considered by many lawyers and judges to be purely procedural.

So justice is considered served if due process is followed, even if the result is a moral nonsense.

This explains a lot about both politics and law, IMO.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 06:04:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well, the important thing to understand is that the institution called "Justice" in various countries is not there to deliver justice but to uphold the law. It shocks most people's intuition, however there are also some good reasons for it in most situations.

But that does lead to some extreme. I'm pretty sure that it's a current US Supreme Court Justice who claimed that proof of innocence was no reason to cancel an execution that was decided by due process.

Earth provides enough to satisfy every man's need, but not every man's greed. Gandhi

by Cyrille (cyrillev domain yahoo.fr) on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 08:19:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Legal Positivism.

It has its merits, because the "natural law" people are also insane.

I distribute. You re-distribute. He gives your hard-earned money to lazy scroungers. -- JakeS

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 08:30:01 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Well - both are a subjective exercise of political power. So I'm not sure one is any more insane than the other.

Utilitarianism is rather more practically oriented.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 09:27:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Except that utilitarianism is based on an exceedingly poor model of human behavior, making it just another Utopian mirage.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 10:09:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]
That's better than being based on distilled fluff and rhetoric.

I suppose ideally you'd have explicit legal/political goals, and sanctions/rewards which would be calibrated and tested against an objective and provably accurate assessment of their value.

But why bother when you don't have to progress beyond simple emotionalism?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 10:13:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
 >But in legal terms it's considered by many lawyers and judges to be purely procedural.<

Gerechtigkeit durch Verfahren. (Luhmann)

That said, due process is at least achievable. A just result is much more difficult.

by IM on Sun Mar 17th, 2013 at 03:19:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Do we know well how are we are treated by law?

Say, is that stuff about us as natural persons or CORPORATIONS serious?

For a change, here is a peculiar story of "science" and law colliding:
The Professor, the Bikini Model and the Suitcase Full of Trouble

by das monde on Mon Mar 18th, 2013 at 06:23:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Occasional Series