Talk:Law/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

The Truth About The Law And This Article

The failure of one contributor to this article to accept edits which acknowledge the difference between giving legal advice and giving legal fact* sponsors concern that other articles in the Wikipedia may need constant scrutiny to eliminate half truth as well.

(*Edits which make the distinction between legal fact and legal advice are quickly erased: i.e. "The giving of legal advice is the telling of what should or should not be done whereas the giving of legal fact is the telling of what can and what can not be done.")

Such erasure suggests the intent of this editor is to prevent the difference between legal fact and legal advice from being acknowledged so that legal fact will continue to be regarded as legal advice and the law maintained as a trade secret and the public process as a business owned and operated by the legal profession. --User:Pce3@ij.net (Patrick Eberhart)

The issue here is not about repressing the truth, but rather about properly framing your contribution. Inserting a criticism about the distinction between legal advice and legal information within the first few lines of an article about the global concept of law is totally inappropriate. I could hardly imagine your criticism applies equally to every legal system in history. If you want your contribution to last I would suggest that you find a better way to articulate within a concrete system or circumstances and to cite it so it does not sound like your own home-brewed theory. --PullUpYourSocks 14:35, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually I have a better idea. If you want to prove your side of the arguement is not a farce then publish a detailed classification of the law in both substance and procedure. A rigorous and detailed classification would go a long way toward preventing the law from being relegated to a trade secret and the public process to a business owned and operated by the legal profession.

Criticism indeed! The article in its original form merely attempts to conceal the facts which I have stated above and will continue to state here: 1) it is not uncommon to enter a public library anywhere to request information regarding a public process and be told by the librarian in accordance with library policy that such information can not be provided becasue it may be construed as giving legal advice even though it is the rendering of legal fact. 2) Legal practitioners claim the exclusive right to give legal advice on the grounds of possessing a license to practice law. Because many individuals are perfectly capable of providing their own advice many practitioners feel that by expanding the definition of legal advice to include legal fact that they can prevent self representation from eliminating any need for them. 3) In many parts of the world the law is treated in the same way as food preparation, that is, the system is operated on the same concept as food preparation in which legal practitioners are regarded on par with restaurants in terms of role and where total and absolute support is given for food preparation in the home.

My criticism is that you have failed to make a distinction between legal fact and legal advice following a statement that is clearly made to establish that only trained and licensed legal practitioners may render legal advice as a premise on which the remainder of the article will be built. This is done in a world where every single human being is subject to the self serving interests of the legal profession who actively seek to obscure the difference between rendering legal advice and legal fact. Insertion of this clarification hear is absolutely appropriate to avoid such deception.

In absence of such clarification this article is biased.

--User:Pce3@ij.net (Patrick Eberhart)

What you are claiming here high debatable. You will need to substantiate your claim using more than just analogies to public libraries and food preparation. --PullUpYourSocks 11:18, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Your defiance in allowing this clarification to remain unmolested is adequate proof of its validity. Further proof can be obtained by walking into any library and asking how to file virtually any motion. Although the answer to the "how to" question is a matter of providing legal fact it is construde according to libary or librarian policy as providing legal advice so as to require the person seeking the information to hire an attorney instead. Common knowledge such as this does not require citing articles. If you want to treat this fact as a hypothesis and test it, by all means do. The fact that your side of the arguement would only benefit legal practitioners financially is likewise; Ipso Facto, proof enough.

209.216.92.232 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not see how you have not proven anything. Rather you have made a number of claims based on some questionable assumptions without showing corroborating evidence. Supporting your claim through personal experience and "common knowledge" is unconvincing and does not meet the standard practice here on wikipedia of contributing verifiable information. The burden is upon you to substantiate your claim and until such time your contribution will be deleted. I would also ask that you refrain from expressing your frustration within the article text. This is vandalism and it will get you blocked from editing. --PullUpYourSocks 02:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I have proven that this article is biased because it does not acknowledge the difference between a legal practitioner giving legal advice and a librarian giving legal information, a stop sign giving legal fact, or a law enforcement officer giving legal notice or warning. My claim is that the article fails to make a distinction between a legal practitioner giving legal advice and a librarian giving legal information, a stop sign giving legal fact, or a law enforcement officer giving legal notice or warning. This is my personal experience, common knowledge and verifiable by reviewing the content of this discussion and the history and content of the article.

Neither does the article provide a rigorous classification of the law in the event you prefer a priori (reason) to a posteriori (experience) as the basis of proof that this article fails to distinguish legal fact from legal advice or opinion. Even in this discussion you have demonstrated your inability to distinguish between fact and opinion. I have not edited anything already existing in the article but have only added factual clarification rather than unfounded opinion. It is not an unfounded opinion or unfounded fact that the de facto consequence of failing to acknowledge the difference between legal advice and legal facts in this article following a statement such as "Legal practitioners, most often, must be professionally trained in the law before they are permitted to advocate for a party in a court of law, draft legal documents, or give legal advice." is to relegate the law as described in this article to the status of a trade secret and the public process to a business owned and operated by the legal profession. The failure to make this distinction allows the phrase "legal advice" to mean anything so long as it remains either arbitrarily defined or undefined. If the phase "legal advice" is important enough to require professional training and permission then it is important enough to be both defined and distinguished from other types of legal terminology or again relegate the law to the status of a trade secret and the public process to a business owned and operated by the legal profession.

Truthful clarification by addition is not vandalism. You not only make absurd threats but base your threats on wrongful accusation. Name the proof that will convince you. This article is biased without such clarification because it intentionally fails to acknowledge the difference between a legal practitioner giving legal advice and a librarian giving legal fact and a law enforcement officer giving legal warning. Show me where this article makes the distinction between legal advice, legal fact and legal warning. Your inability to do so is; Ipso Facto, proof enough of my claim. In the alternative merely show me a rigorous classification of legal procedures and substance. Without either proof the law de jure according to the article is deemed a trade secret and the public process a business owned and operated by the legal profession. This conclusion is based on the facts and not on opinion.


PCE 04:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

What you wish to add, if I am to understand correctly, is clarification of the distinction between legal advice and legal information. I agree that it is an important distinction to make in many circumstances but by putting it in the header text of an article on "law" you are establishing that the advice/information issue is central to the very definition of law as a universal principle. I cannot agree with that. None of the basic treatise on law make this out to be a central issue of law. In fact, I am doubtful that the distinction is even made in many parts of the world. What constitutes "legal advice", at least in common law jurisdictions, is established by case law and statute, and so depending on what jurisdiction you are referring to the meaning of the word "legal advice" will be different. This "trade secret" argument that you propose may be valid in whatever jurisdiction you live in but you've presented nothing to suggest that this is a universal principle or characteritic of law. Unless you can show that your claim is universal to all law by means of authoritatize law treaties or other scholarly work such contributions are best placed in articles that concern the precise jurisdiction that you are describing. -PullUpYourSocks 20:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)


Unfortunately the article has already raised the issue of legal advice in the header text of the article as a premise for the rest of the article. This fact mandates that clarification be made in the header before the reader can proceed to other premises or to your conclusion. You feel that the role of legal practitioners is significantly important that it deserves mention here. If you do not agree that it is central to the very definition of law then try moving your statement "Legal practitioners, most often, must be professionally trained in the law before they are permitted to advocate for a party in a court of law, draft legal documents, or give legal advice." to another location especially if you dislike it being followed by this clarification. You might also try following it with your own discourse on the difference between legal advice, legal fact, legal notice and legal warning. At least you are aware that they are not the same and although you disagree with the idea that their distinction deserves explanation if not definition. The fact is that distinction between legal advice, legal fact, legal notice, and legal warning is central to any article that would purport to define the “Law” even if less sophisticated cultures would not employ such a distinction. Legal advice is not as nebulous, uncertain or undefined as you iterate. Legal advice is well understood and defined. Legal advice is the giving of a formal and binding opinion regarding the substance or procedure of the law by an officer of the court in exchange for financial or other tangible compensation. If this is not how you define legal advice please explain to us what exactly your definition of legal advice is.

Whenever a distinction is not made between legal advice, legal fact, legal notice and legal warning they may be erroneously regarded as one in the same. Consequently the need for training and permission associated with giving legal advice is likewise applied to legal information, legal fact, legal notice and legal warning. Since giving legal advice is associated with tangible compensation one would have to pay a legal practitioner to find out what a stop sign meant or why or on what charge one had been arrested. Obtaining knowledge of the law would be relegated to paying a legal practitioner under any and every situation that the legal profession could deem as legal advice thus turning the law into a trade secret and the public process into a business owned and operated by the legal profession. This is in fact what you are advocating by denying that legal advice be distinguished from other forms of legal information. Your position is the most serious indication of internal and inherent corruption within the legal system I can possibly imagine. What makes this a universal principle and definite characteristic is ethics. For too long the legal profession has been cited for its lack of ethics whereas ethics is of fundamental concern to every society worldwide and universally. You should be ashamed for suggesting otherwise and at the same time making a contribution to an article on the law. It is clear than any contribution you intend to make will reject ethics as a fundamental principle to which an author or editor must subscribe and provide. Consult any text on legal ethics and follow the dictums therein or relegate your writing to the dust.

PCE 23:22, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

A link to the meaning of legal advice is enough for this context. As I have said before "legal advice" is not a universal term, and where it is used its meaning is interpreted differently between jurisdictions. In any event, details such as the advice/information distinction is not fundamental to law so it is inappropriate here. Your vigorous insistence to push this "trade secret" descriptor with without any reference to texts or writing and your apparent anamosity towards the legal profession is making it exceptionally difficult for us to come to an agreement on this issue, and unless this changes you will continue to be remain unable to add such content to the article. --PullUpYourSocks 03:38, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

All the more need to define a word or phase that can be and has been abused by misinterpretation. When phases that have more than one sence are not defined when expressed then deception is the purpose of their usage. You can avoid the need for clarification in a header by not using an ambiguity as a premise for the remainder of the article.

I have no animosity for the legal profession but only for those individuals who represent the law and the public process as a toll road for any purpose. Such individuals lack any commitment to legal ethics and are a blight on the legal profession.

PCE 09:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Since the article is about law everywhere, it is necessary to have a degree of ambiguity, hence the use of qualifiers such as "most often". There is really no way around this. We cannot treat any legal system as more worthy of descrition than any other system ,so if we go into detail on the meaning of a term in one part of the world, it follows we must to the same for every other one. This is not practical for this particular article. Accordingly, I trust that the separate article on "legal advice" will satisfy your desire for clarification on the term. --PullUpYourSocks 20:04, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Not really but I would consider it to be an unreasonable compromise in absence of the benefit of instantaneous reference provided by the hypertext link to a definition. It is the need presented by the printed version that obligates a clarification be spelled out in the immediate vicinity of the text.

It is only the absence of clarification and the intentional misuse and abuse coupled with active promotion of confusion over the term legal advice by profit monger type attorneys that makes the absence of immediate clarification an issue which must be addressed in order that the fundamental legal principle of ethics, in which law everywhere must be based, be defended and upheld.

PCE 23:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A lawyer might be able to agree that Law is: "intended to provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide punishments" but a thinking person would instead say, "Law is the commonly agreed on, but formal statements by which a society may continue to survive in the manner its members agree on." That's the theory and ideas. Of course I recognize it is far more popular to consider law to be a series of punishments, a series of arguements, a series of enforcements, but those are equivalent to our "guidelines" rather than a parallel to our "policies" on wikipedia. Law is both policy and later, as implemented by law enforcement, is actual how - to guidelines. But it originates as a philosophy of agreements, not as an "intent" by "Big Brother" whom no man is responsible for. Terryeo 01:22, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

first talk

Previous discussion (mostly amoung editors no longer active in editing the article) can be found at Talk:Law/Old and Talk:Law/Old 2

As mentioned in the archived discussion pages, this article is a real mess.

It has a huge paragraph disambiguating law from physics instead of an introduction, four or so sub-articles which don't fit together and contradict each other, and then a six or so lists of links. The lists of links (legal systems, "branches" of law, and so on) get decreasingly wordy and comprehensive as the article progresses.

The opening definition of law makes the claim that law is often referred to as a "human legal code" when contrasted with physical laws and so on. According to Google, this claim is simply false. The phrase "human legal code" only appears twice on Google once Wikipedia content is excluded, and in both cases the phrase is not used as a term of art, but in some sort of discussion about the divine authorship of the Old Testament.

is this done yet?

As someone else has suggested, jurisprudence wants its own article (and of course, already has one!), so we should get rid of that section.

done

Law as an academic discipline is far too long for a general article about law as a social phenomenon, and the details of what your qualification is abbreviated to in Canada are totally out of place.

done

Legal systems should probably have its own article, now that it has been reseparated from branches of law. Branches of law should be integrated instead with the huge list of legal subject areas. As "branches of law, a sampling", it even admits it's not comprehensive, which invites the question of why some subject matter areas get their own paragraph and others are relegated to the list of links in the next section.

part done - legal systems now has own article

"Codification of law" seems like someone's attempt to put a subject heading on "law as codification", and should be at the most renamed. It manages to get in a definition of what law is, which would do better in the introduction.

not done yet

Mk270 19:48, 17 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Effectively, no-one has responded to this complaint, nor has anyone materially objected as some of the above recommendations were implemented. Six months having now elapsed, I propose to carry out the remainder of the recommendations. Mk270 19:19, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A link to Condominium law does not belong on this page, if anything it is something that should appear in an article about real property, and then if the content merits a separate page that page should be written. I will leave this comment here for a few days, if no one objects I will remove the sentence of condo law to the real property page. Alex756 15:19, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Probably not on this page, agreed, but it could go under property (or real estate) law, which doens't seem to have a link. I am afraid condo law may degenerate into condo rules not actual law, if careful distinction isn't made. But there is still enough law about condos for an article. Rmhermen 16:00, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

I feel somewhat guilt about neglecting this article. It seems to have deteriorated considerably. I note the following:

"In ethics and moral philosophy this type of law is often called a "human legal code" to distinguish it from more fundamental laws applicable to all beings (metaphysics, ontology). Such a body of laws can be seen as a legally-enforced ethical code or as a "secular moral code" (to the degree that political leaders replace religious leaders as moral examples)"

It is a commonplace that many laws have only a regulative content and are essentially divorced from both ethics and morals (although a moral and ethical duty to obey the law remains).

I note also the development of a jurisprudence section which probably should be moved and developed at jurisprudence. Fred Bauder 14:14, 24 Sep 2003 (UTC)


Back in April a user called Shino Baku (or similar) initiated a series of edits, one of whose effects was to combine the section on legal systems with that on "branches" of law. One of the effects of this was to conflate the various meanings of "civil law" (as a legal system and as a body of law within particular legal systems). At any rate, the user in question was subsequently accused of being some sort of troublemaker and his/her account suspended, and I'd like to now propose the reversal of his/her unannounced major change to the article, and remove the conflation of legal systems and "branches" of law. Mk270 09:08, 3 Oct 2003 (UTC)~

I remember interacting with User:Shino Baku and finding the questions and reasoning that were being put forth by this user to be confused and confusing. I think straightening this out is a good idea and I thought about that too, but did not want to seem to autocratic about it being just one person making the suggestion. SB also made a bunch of other edits to law related articles that were problematic. Alex756 00:31, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Of course, we should prefer "the change was a bad one" to "the change was made by a bad user" as our reason for reversal. My reasons would be that legal systems and areas of law are effectively orthogonal: the legal system of each country will probably cover each of these areas of law; if the "branches of law" list went Employment Law, English Law, French Law, Land Law, US Federal Law, it would be patently ridiculous. To a limited extent, the notion of law being both all-encompassing and simultaneously compartmentalisable into discrete units as "branches", differentiated by subject matter, is not strictly neutral as between different legal traditions: most uncodified common law legal systems would not have such pretensions ... but at least this offsets the Anglocentrism of the rest of the article!

At any rate, reverting to the status quo ante the Shino Baku change would be a major reorganisation, and one which perhaps ought to be done in combination with a shakedown between the current competition between "law" and "the law" in the article. Mk270 18:12, 4 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There having been no objection here for three months, I have carried out the proposed change, separating legal systems from "branches" of law. Mk270 19:00, 10 Apr 2004 (UTC)~

See Mediawiki:law to edit the law sidebar. -SV(talk) 08:55, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I removed the following two external links as they were not about the broader subject of law. --Zigger 01:49, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

TO long should we put a notice on wikipedia main page ? Paladine

Definitions in the mess

I agree that this article just isn't well. I have been reading some of the equivalent articles in other Wikipedias (in other languages) and they seem much better.

This article should start by saying that one of the problems in law is that nobody agrees on how to define it.

It would be hepful to put here a collection of different definitions of law by different authors. Perhaps starting with Ulpian...

Another important point would be to make a distinction between an «external» and an «internal» (following Herbert_Hart; but other words could be used) perspective about law. The former one is «sociological» (there we talk about a kind of interactions and social processes), the latter is «legal» (here we say, for instance, that law is a set of norms). These are really different things. Law sociologists and lawyers don't talk about the same when they say «law».

Well, I'm not sure I'd start with Ulpian, and certainly not with Gaius ;), but this page does need a much better structure. A look at the German and Dutch pages on Law is instructive. These people are basically writing about a Germanic or Romanistic conception of law, which purportedly affords easy categories around which to structure the article, so I guess they have a head start. More importantly, German wikipedia has these portals, and so all those lists of this and lists of that which make up so much of the English article are not present, simplifying the picture. I think they should be split off in the English page too.
Mk270 19:23, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Litigation?

I find it somewhat disturbing that in this article, the word "litigation" does not appear. I'm sure it has a place somewhere in this article, as it has a fundamental place in the law. After some digging around, I've found that Wikipedia redirects queries about "litigation" to "civil law". I know the list of areas of law is not comprehensive, but it would be beneficial to anyone who is reading the article to be able to quickly associate litigation with civil law. Can anyone find a comfortable niche for the word, or supply an adequate reason for its absence? Thanks! Zephlon 20:38, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Notable law firm?

There is currently an interesting VfD going on in relation to a 60-lawyer law firm. What is at stake is whether this law firm is notable. Your opinion is welcome, here. Thanks. --Edcolins 09:15, May 29, 2005 (UTC)

Legal systems of the world

I think this article could use more description on the spectrum of legal systems around the world. I was reading a webpage [1] describing the dominant legal systems of the world and the locations where they are practiced. The articles and accompanying map were particularly illustrative. This article could benefit from this sort of info. Any takers? -- PullUpYourSocks 17:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

publication

would you like to publish this article? -- Zondor 22:20, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Clean up

This article is in a real poor state. I'm hoping to do some major editing soon. My major thought it to make it broader in scope. Too much of the article right now is about to north american legal practices and there is not enough about the meaning of "law". If you'd like to discuss it, please do. --PullUpYourSocks 03:39, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I've removed the whole section originally entitled "discussion". It reads like an essay, it mixes opinion with philosophy with fact, all using very vague generalizations. It's really hard to get a sense of what law in the world looks like. In all, it's not appropriate for an encycopedia. Here it is for those who might be able to save some of it:

According to St. Thomas Aquinas, the law is an ordinance of reason for the common good, promulgated by him who has the care of the community. Most laws and legal systems—at least in the Western world—are quite similar in their essential themes, arising from similar values and similar social, economic, and political conditions, and they typically differ less in their substantive content than in their jargon and procedures. Communication between legal systems is the focus of legal translation and legal lexicography, which deals with the principles of producing a law dictionary. One of the fundamental similarities across different legal systems is that, to be of general approval and observation, a law has to appear to be public, effective, and legitimate, in the sense that it has to be available to the knowledge of the citizen in common places or means, it needs to contain instruments to grant its application, and it has to be issued under given formal procedures from a recognized authority. In the context of most legal systems, laws are enacted through the processes of constitutional charter, constitutional amendment, legislation, executive order, rulemaking, and adjudication. Within common law jurisdictions, rulings by judges are an important additional source of legal rules; within civil law jurisdictions, rulings do not constitute de jure for the future, but in practice, jurisprudence is often quite equivalent to common law precedent. However, de facto laws also come into existence through custom and also tradition. (See generally Consuetudinary law; Anarchist law.) Law has an anthropological dimension. In order to have a culture of law, people must dwell in a society where a government exists whose authority is hard to evade and generally recognised as legitimate. People take their grievances before the government and its agents, who arbitrate disputes and enforce penalties. This behaviour is contrasted with the culture of honor, where respect for persons and groups stems from fear of the disproportionate revenge they may exact if their person, property, or prerogatives are not respected. Cultures of law must be maintained. They can be eroded by declining respect for the law, achieved either by weak government unable to wield its authority, or by burdensome restrictions that attempt to forbid behaviour prevalent in the culture or in some subculture of the society. When a culture of law declines, there is a possibility that an undesirable culture of honor will arise in its place. A particular society or community adopts a specific set of laws to regulate the behavior of its own members, to order life in its political territory, to grant or acknowledge the rights and privileges of its citizens and other people who may come under the jurisdiction of its courts, and to resolve disputes. There are several distinct laws and legal traditions, and each jurisdiction has its own set of laws and its own legal system. Individually codified laws are known as statutes, and the collective body of laws relating to one subject or emanating from one source are usually identified by specific reference. (E.g., Roman law, Common law, and Criminal law.) Moreover, the several different levels of government each produce their own laws, though the extent to which law is centralized varies. Thus, at any one place there can be conflicting laws in force at the local, regional, state, national, or international levels. (See conflict of laws, Preemption of State and Local Laws.)

I appreciate everyone bearing with me. I’ve removed quite a bit of older material, but much of it has only been relocated so hopefully not much has been lost. My accuracy with some of the facts may be leave something to be desired, but I think the new layout is much more sound than it ever was. Any comments on what more is needed or what should be put back in would be welcome. PullUpYourSocks 00:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Sources of law

Any idea where this and source of law should redirect?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It's difficult to say. To me, its meaning is entirely dependant on what "law" you are talking about. I removed the section by that name in this article because it was confusing as to who used which "source". The fact of the matter is, each tradition has their own "source", or even more precisely, each country has their own variation on the sources of law. Consequently, the "source of law" should likely be mentioned within either the legal tradition and probably not in this page. I'm not very comfortable with the idea of listing, say, five different sources of law and then saying "some countries use certain of these sources while others don't". It's cleaner just to leave it out. PullUpYourSocks 12:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Having thought it over, perhaps a "sources of law" section wouldn't be totally out of line. I still have a lot of reservations about it, but if someone can make it less western-centric than the old one, I could be convinced. PullUpYourSocks 02:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Perhaps you could move here the text you removed from the article, and we can work on this to make it better?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 04:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Though I have doubts about excluding the section, (in a large part because the source of law it seems worth mentioning somewhere) I still remain sceptical about the section and especially the old version. The previous one consisted almost entirely of examples from select countries, and what inevitably happens is that each person who reads it feels compelled to distinguish their own country's law to maintain balance. This usually results in a terrible mess. Much of the rewrite of the article was with a view to remove concrete examples and move them into more confined articles. My doubts about removal of the "sources of law" section are based on the possibility that there may be substantial content to put in the section that does not include pure lists of examples. However, I can't think of what that content would be. As a compromise, I would propose to put a mention of possible sources of law somewhere in the lead-in or else in the beginning of the "legal traditions" section. Perhaps somethings like: "The laws of each legal tradition are typically derived from any number of sources including a constitution, statute, code, case law, or custom." Any further suggestions would be welcome. -PullUpYourSocks 13:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
This sentence is definetly a good beginning. The 'sources of law by country' is useful, if only as an addition to a more general article/section (I came here after creating an article on Dziennik Ustaw, a Polish source of law, see also promulgation).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Just and Fair?

I see that law, according to the article, provides an outcome that is "just and fair." Furthermore, a culture of law contrasts with a culture of honour, where "respect for persons and groups stems from fear of the revenge they may exact if their person, property, or prerogatives are not respected."

It might be helpful if anyone could give an example of a place where law is practiced, as opposed to honour. I'm unaware of any legal system in this world that is both just and fair (or either), and that does not achieve its effect from instilling a fear of revenge. In North America, for example, fear of revenge of people with physical power has been largely replaced by fear of revenge of people with money.

In North America, laws are based on the indoctrinated views of the legal establishment, under the pretence of representing the people's wishes. The primary tool through which they are enforced is coercion. For example, some people are coerced into plea bargains, loopholes that get around the notion of reasonable doubt, while others are coerced into out-of-court settlements, in which those people or organizations with more money can destroy the lives of those with less, in order to simultaneously vindicate their egos, exact revenge, and make even more money. This is even more effective than a culture of honour, which merely exacts revenge.

The need for revenge, coupled with the need of lawyers to become wealthy, as well as perceptions of highly-paid judges (most of whom have no idea what a thousand dollars means to the average person) works together to escalate settlements to 5 to 10 times what the average person would think reasonable - except in defamation cases, where the amount is 20 to 50 times higher, due to the perceptions of those in the "posturing profession" of law, whose egos are so sensitive that a slight bruise (deserved or not) is equated with the loss of a limb.

Perhaps culture of dishonour would be more accurate? 24.64.223.203 08:14, 16 December 2005 (UTC)