Talk:Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome! This subject is outlined on the List of basic law topics. That list, along with the other Lists of basic topics, is part of a map of Wikipedia. Your help is needed to complete this map! To begin, please look over this subject's list, analyze it, improve it, and place it on your watchlist. Then join the Lists of basic topics WikiProject!
Featured article star Law is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on March 5, 2007.
February 16, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Archive
Archives


Contents

[edit] Mens Rea & Opening Statement

The entry states, in the transition between the description of tort law and criminal law, that the offense must be criminalized AND intentional. This is blatantly false. Only the Mens Rea of Purpose requires intent, Knowledge, Recklessness, and Negligence, do not require intent. There are plenty of offenses actionable in civil proceedings under tort law which are also crminalized offenses and thus actionable under criminal law which do not require a culpability of intent. I have removed this statement, since by definition, all offenses which are criminalized (i.e. exist within the penal code) are covered under criminal law. The required mens rea is a distinct issue and irrelevant to the area of law in which the action will be prosecuted/tried/etc.

This does remove an initial link to intentionality, which is important for an encyclopedic law article. However, including a link in opposition to the actual functioning of law, and in the process providing the reader the assumption that all criminal acts must be intentional, is in my view completely inappropriate. -Malaclypse

[edit] Common Law

The (linked) article on Common Law traces it's origin to Henry II, not John. This was always my understanding too, although some vaguely defined pre-Norman precedent was cited even then (and right through until the English Civil War). Anyone else with any thoughts? Epeeist smudge 00:07, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, forge ahead and edit the Main page for Common law! It sounds like you know a bit about it, and so use all the sources you have to write what's correct. Wikidea 03:21, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief common law was concieved within a decade of the conquest of 1066. The king (William I) dispatched itinerant justices to all areas to learn the laws of the land, generally comprising of Dane Law, Mercian Law and Wessex law. These were discussed, dicided upon which are the best, writen and learned by the justices in Westminster. The law would be common to all of England. If a judge had already writen of a situation or law the dicision would stand (stare decisis). Although this was srictly speaking the law (according to the soveriegn) Elliot & Quinn (English Legal System, ed6, (2006, London:Longman) at 9) believe it would not have been applicable to citizens or to take action under around 1250. Bamkin 16:46, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Add it to the Common law article!!! Wikidea 17:55, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Edit

Hi, I've just changed part of the intro: "But if one person harms another intentionally, then criminal law ensures that the perpetrator is removed from society." to "harms another in violation of criminal statute." I've done this because intentional harms, as it was rendered before can still be torts, and are not necessarily criminal violations. I recognize that the change may appear somewhat redundant, but it was technically incorrect before. --ThaneofFife 01:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)ThaneofFife

It's still technically incorrect:
  • someone who commits a crime is not necessarily convicted of it;
  • someone who is convicted of a crime isn't necessarily removed from society - discharges, fines and community sentences are all very common.
Crebbin 18:41, 10 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] The force of law

As someone with a science background, I am interested in Isaac Newton's formulation of the basic principles underlying Nature, the laws of nature. Thus I was struck by the apparent debt of the natural philosophers to the Law, as something even mass particles obey, including the mechanisms to which we are subject, such as force. Force was introduced by Newton, but he apparently selected the term from its use by the ancient Romans (Lex). Might there be a place for this in some article which bridges both Law and Science? This is a very enjoyable article, by the way. Good work. --Ancheta Wis 04:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

If you click the link to the disambiguation page, I think there's something there about the word 'law' as applied to 'laws of nature', and perhaps there's already something about it? Your right though, it is an interesting topic. My understanding is that before about 1750 (David Hume being one of the first) most thinkers simply didn't make the distinction between sciences and social sciences. Have a look at the jurisprudence article, where there's a bit more about natural law and its tradition. Going right back to the Greeks, every aspect of human thought was meant to be part of an all encompassing grand narrative. Wikidea 07:26, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I must say I agree with Anceta Wis here. Law is in this article referring to the "laws of men" in "societies"; (really) abstract properties of political manifestations of "guiding principles" for human behaviour all loosely based on religious ethics. "Laws of nature" are (like the laws of men) constantly being reinterpreted to fit the sciences. "Laws", as imposed on other human creations, like computer science are bent and broken every day within the confines of systems that are loosely defined by "laws" that are a mere fiction of our perception. The "law of motion" (as defined by Newton) only applies in given circumstances (collapses under others) and "law" is often a really ambiguous statement when applied to the cooperation between humans (justice and egality (as pointed out by the article)). The article is good, but it refers to a certain interpretation of the word "law" that is much to narrow for it to have any real quality. Why can't we split it up to make law a more general "etymological" and semantic definition of the concept and move the current "law" to "human law" (or something like that). User:skeldoy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.241.8 (talk) 17:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to do something on the disambiguation page, not here. The 'certain interpretation of the word 'law is the RIGHT one, because its what everyone knows, and it's what most people want when they type in 'law'! Wikidea 13:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Contract

Don't know whether this had been discussed already, but I'm just considering the sentence "Some common law systems, like Australia, are moving away from consideration as a requirement for a contract". As an Australian law student, I've read and been exposed to nothing which suggests that Australia is moving away from consideration as an element in contract.

Am I just behind the legal times, or would this be appropriate to change? Smaug007 02:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

The case I quoted for this is Austotel v Franklins and there's another called Waltons Stores (Interstate) Ltd v. Maher (1988) 164 CLR 387 from the High Court about a dept store starting to be built without the dept. store co. and the developer having yet signed the contract; estoppel was used as grounds for the creation of a contractual obligation rather than an amendment of the way it worked, because the the High Court said that there was a reliance on expectations raised through the course of negotiations, which resulted in Walton's detriment (namely, they started demolishing an old building). "When these elements are present," wrote Brennan J, "equitable estoppel almost wears the appearance of contract, for the action or inaction of the promisee looks like consideration for the promise on which, as the promisor knew or intended, the promisee would act or abstain from acting..." This is a big change from the classic adage "estoppel is a shield but not a sword" which is what we in England hold on to. It's closer to, as in the article, the concept of culpa in contrahendo, which you find e.g. in the German Civil Code. I'm sure you're not behind in the times, but I hope that clears things up. Wikidea 07:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The FA passed me by

I was just mentioned[1] as something of a primary contributor to bringing the article to FA-status and I thought it was appropriate to point out that I don't agree at all with being cited as a supporter.

I had no idea that the article had been promoted; it appeared to me to have enough problems to get voted down (even if it seemed to be heading for great things at a later nomination). The only substantial criticism that I had was about how contrived the lead was. In my view it's still contrived, except that it now reads like the introduction to an academic paper and starts by confronting the reader with no fewer than 5 separate quotes that all could be summarized in much simpler words and without anyone complaining about not citing academics about it. And why cite the etymology at all? It's not going to be disputed and it's ridiculously easy to verify, even for someone who isn't an etymology nerd. I have nothing but praise for the editors that did a wonderful job of filling it with content, but I would never support an FA with this kind of lead and such a pedantic method of referencing.

Peter Isotalo 22:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I came here to make a similar comment. I was trying to write the main page blurb (so that this article can be the FA of the day) and I can't, because the first sentence (Law ... threat of a sanction) is just too convoluted. I'd like to request that someone distill this down into one or two concise sentences. Raul654 05:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
When I saw the nomination over a month ago, I tried summarizing the first paragraph to the best of my knowledge of law (which is not terribly impressive). It was merely a rough draft, but I still feel that the gist of it would be better than the current intro:
A law is a set of rules intended to govern society, usually through the threat of some form of punishment or reprimand upon the transgression of such a rule. Laws can regulate a huge variety of aspects of human society. There are laws that regulate employment, contracts, ownership, businesses, etc. Laws may define how businesses are run through torts. Laws create and regulate education, medical care and public utilities. Laws can remove people from society for their crimes, can create bridges between different societies and decide how elections for who represents society should be conducted. There are even laws about how to make new laws.
Peter Isotalo 09:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, Peter, this diff does not say that you were a supporter, but that you helped with bringing the article to FA status with your contributions. These are two different things. Second, I agree that the first sentence is too long with many definitions, but, when I tried to trim it, including just one definition, there were reactions by Wikidea. Third, I agree that the lead must be rewritten, but I am not sure if Peter's version is the best alternative. Its flaw IMO is that it looks more as a bullet intro without bullets than as a proper summary as it should (I also count 8-9 times the word "law" in 5-6 lines). And in Peter's definition I would prefer a "system of rules" instead of a "set of rules".--Yannismarou 11:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
By all means, please improve it, it wasn't meant as a fait accompli. The point I was trying make was merely to write the intro as a summary of general fact statements rather than a long string of quotes.
Peter Isotalo 19:25, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I may try during the Weekend to work on the lead, but I would feel more comfortable if a native English speaker could undertake this task.--Yannismarou 19:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I would like to note first of all that this is the only page on Wikipedia on a whole social science or humanities discipline that is featured. I think you would be hard pushed to get historians, philosophers, economists, etc to agree on some simple definition to be inserted at the start of their encyclopedia article, as hard as that might sound. So we must pay attention to the views in academic literature, not brush them aside. People are meant to read this page to learn something, not change it according to what they feel sounds good!

Second, I refer everyone in the discussion, again, to the topic of jurisprudence, which asks "what is law" as its core question. This is precisely the debate over definitions. It isn't simple. Raul567/Peter, what you put in is the Austin definition (i.e. law is commands backed with the threat of a sanction) which unfortunately is quite wrong for any philosophers in the twentieth century. Also, I personally don't think punishment or reprimand is at all the right way to talk about things - in criminal law a lot of people don't agree with the idea that people should be punished, and not for instance rehabilitated. A lot of people will want to throw in a dictionary definition about law being some kind of "system of rules" or law being something that "governs people" - note first this is Hart all over (without the careful explanation that Hart avoids) and note second that it's tautologous (e.g. what's a system of rules/governing people? Law!). Note third that the most prominent legal philosopher of late, Ronald Dworkin, completely disagrees with this.

Law is an interpretive concept. Judges should decide what the law is by interpreting the practice of other judges deciding what the law is."- Dworkin, Law's Empire, 410

Dworkin's view is that you can't put law down into some simple system of positive rules, because it's also about what people believe the most just and appropriate actions are.

Here's an olive branch, though:

"Law", in common parlance, means a rule which (unlike a rule of ethics) is actually capable of enforcement through institutions created for that purpose. But "law" in the phrase "international law" does not automatically have this quality: it has no police force or bailiffs, and its courts lack the capacity to punish for contempt or for disobedience to their orders." - Robertson, Crimes against Humanity, 90

All I can think is that I put in some kind of cavaet, like "Law in common parlance means da da da".

But I expect that even if I rewrite it someone will want to change it, because maybe they take a Hart view, if there's a Dworkinian intro. Or maybe they take an Austin view if there's a Hartian intro. Or maybe they take a.... Wikidea 00:20, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

For crying out loud... This isn't an academic forum! I'm perfectly aware that academics often debate the meaning of terms are quite intuitive to laypeople and that they have their reasons for doing so. This is very appropriate for their purposes, even. But the lead of an encyclopedic article is not the place to try to summarize such contrived discourse. The primary meaning of "law" is not that complicated as long as you're not trying to write a paper. If you want to present the finer details of the view of academics, do so in a separate section or something.
Peter Isotalo 17:19, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
There's no need to start crying, out loud or anywhere, mate. Isn't it surprising that the first sentence is the one that causes the most controversy?! I'm changing it primarily because your definition, Peter, is misleading. There is a separate section for detail, called Jurisprudence, and it is important, not academic. And I'm happy to keep the sentence simple. But I'm not sure you looked at everything I wrote in my reply: reprimands and punishment are criminal law concepts. That's not what the vast majority of legal subjects are about - there's compensatory, restitutionary and punitive aims. Wikidea 22:50, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that as it is now the lead is OK: a brief definition in the first sentence, and further academic views in the relevant note.--Yannismarou 17:22, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

FYI - In reply to I would like to note first of all that this is the only page on Wikipedia on a whole social science or humanities discipline that is featured. - economics is a former featured article. Raul654 01:25, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, it was. Wikidea 02:45, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm too late for the main page though apparently - it really is a mistake to talk about reprimands and punishments. Can it still be changed? Or maybe I should stop worrying so much. It's only fun, after all. Thank you to everyone! Wikidea 03:16, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
If you have an adm like me looking at the article, it can be changed at any moment! Well, I changed it according to this last version, which I hope that it will really be the last one! After all, IMO it is not such a big deal.--Yannismarou 10:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

The article looks good, but I think I might have objected to the FAC. Since that's passed, thought I'd nevertheless propose a few thoughts:

  1. Would it be reasonable to include a centralized section on sources of law? "Legislature" isn't mentioned until Legal Institutions, and "jurist" occurs only in the See Also section. Legislators and judges are of primary importance, yes, but what about regulators and jurists (outside of abstract philosophy)?
Constitutional and administrative law do an okay job of mentioning these things. Perhaps you can have a closer read. Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After all, it is difficult to speak about "Sources of law" in general in this article. You have to specify and speak about sources of law in each branch (international, administrative), and in each system (civil, common); something that is done. I'm afraid that the creation of a "Sources of law" section because of this fact (that its branch and system has its own particular sources) will cause more confusion.--Yannismarou 10:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. The Legal Institutions section seems a little unencyclopedic to me, or perhaps it just looses focus on the Law. In order to properly understand the law, do we really need to know that most legislatures are bicameral or the differences between parliamentary and presidential executive systems? Worse, why does Executive focus only on the highest levels of government (heads of state and of government and their cabinents) but (almost completely) omit regulatory agencies, consigning them to a rambling discussion of "bureaucracy" its own subsection? I can kind-of-sort-of see a subsection for military and police separate from Executive, but it's still kind of weak and bifurcated as it stands. (Is it meant to discuss the history of militaries and police or the monopoly-of-force theory of the state?) In short, the discussion of "legal institutions" seems more appropriate to Government rather than Law. This isn't to say that some discussion isn't important, but the section needs more focus on The Law.
Perhaps you can add to the Bureaucracy page, on regulatory agencies; that's what they are, aren't they? Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. It seems like the classical order of introducing the branches of government would be legislative (which makes the law by and large, after all), executive (which enforces the law), and judicial (which interprets the law and moderates between the other two and the people). Niggling point, I know, but it would follow with the plans established by Locke and Montesquieu.
Classical order? I'm not sure there's really an order. The reason though, is that the military and bureaucracy follow on from the executive; they're under its control (usually). Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  1. Other niggling, pigheaded points: the European Parliament can't initiative legislation, only review and revise. It would be better methinks to have an image of a real legislature, like the Bundestag. Why Hu Jintao? Why not Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva or someone from a country actually under the rule of law? The Law is only beginning to have any real power in China, and otherwise is disregarded or used as a political weapon.
You're right, it's niggling. But the EP does legislate. I put it there mostly because it's a better picture. By the way, does the Bundestag legislate by itself? Doesn't it need the Bundesrat? It sounds like we should keep discussion of bicameralism in after all! Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

--Monocrat 02:15, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm being cheeky with you, but you don't raise bad points. Perhaps there's a lot of stuff you can help to add in the main pages on government? I did myself wonder whether legal sources might be a good way of doing it, but then decided, because of the civil/common law discussion above, that it's largely covered already. The institutions also are important because these are the most crucial sources of law, and the most important institutions for its being upheld. Wikidea 00:39, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll answer just to the last point for the time being: The EP cannot initiate legislation (only the Commission does), but it is a part of the legislation procedure, and most European legislation is not nowadays adopted without its approvemen. So, I don't think that there is a problem with the picture, since the EP is a real legislature with legislative powers.--Yannismarou 11:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
It's no big deal about the EP--personal preference I suppose. But since the purpose of the section is to explain legislature's role in crafting the law, it seems a lit—OtherDave 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)tle odd to feature a body with hobbled powers.--Monocrat 19:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll defer on most of the points, but would there be objection to my replacing Hu with Lula? That aside I really think the Legal Institutions section weighs down the article. I'm not fond of so prominently featuring the term "Bureaucracy" in this sense: it seems to be a derogatory (or at least loaded) term, especially when coupled with "red tape" and the quote from de Grimm. Again, I can see how the content of "Bureaucracy" relates to, well, bureaucracy, but I'm less sure how it relates to the Law. The word "law" doesn't even appear in the subsection, nor does "regulation" or "administrative courts" (which, in the U.S. at least need not be courts under Article III). Would it really harm the article to trim Bureaucracy and Military/Police and merge them into Executive? Or at the very least make them sub-subsections of it? As for the ordering of the institutions, Locke treats first of the legislative then the executive, and Montesquieu establishes first the legislative, then the executive, and then the judicial, and this ordering is followed at least in the U.S. Constitution. Anyway, as for sources of law, I guess I'd just like to see discussion of the historical importance of jurists, which overlaps judges' opinions and legal practice today. Ah well. And bicameralism doesn't apply the EP: it's inferior to both the Commission and the Council (tricameral?), and I believe the Bundestag can make its will prevail over the Bundesrat. ;) --Monocrat 15:57, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
No, the Bundestag cannot always prevail on Bundesrat. Bicameralism does not refer to the EP. EP is pictured as an example of legislature; not as an example of bicameralism. After all, the section speaks also about unicameralism. And it is wrong to compare the Commission with the EP, because the commission may have the legislative initiative but has limited decisive powers (mostly regulatory and not legislative), while the EP has more decisive legislative powers compared to the Commission.--Yannismarou 16:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh! And "bureaucracy" as a term is not deragotary at all. "Bureaucracy" is a whole sector of public administration established by Weber, and as a scientific discipline is much much much broader and important than what we call nowadays "red tape". That is why I insisted during the article's review to make clear this distinction. Weber and other theoriticians regarded bureaucracy as a necessary and helpful system in a developped country. I'm very reluctant to see this section removed or even trimmed. And it related to the law, because the main branch of executive, public administration and its institutions are built on the bureaucratic system.--Yannismarou 16:46, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Yannismarou, the Bundestag comment was in response to Wikidea's comment. I had hoped the emoticon would have weakened the import of the statment, but I suppose I was deceived in that hope. I'm not pushing the point anyway. This is not the place for a debate on the merits or nature of the EP in general or in relation to the image: we disagree, and I can live with that. As for "Bureaucracy." Yes, it is a field of study and can be a scientific term: it's the title of a major text in public economics. But, when the header of the subsection is taken together with the de Grimm quotation (in short, "the state exists to serve the welfare of bureaucracy"), the use of "Cynicism" and "officialdom," and the popular, negative connotation of the term "bureaucracy" as opposed to "civil service" or "regulatory/executive/administrative agencies," I'm left with a negative impression. And I know how executive agencies are related to the law: they enforce the law by force, execute it by order and grant, and expand it through rule and regulation. I would like to know why this is not succinctly and clearly stated. Must I burrow through de Grimm and Weber to divine the relation to the law? The closing sentence of the subsection, "Bureaucracy can play a negative role with ever more 'red tape', or a positive one, by organising public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport," is ambiguous (a role in what exactly?) and has only indirect relation to the Law. What I'm asking, and I don't think it's unreasonable, is that the relationship between the topics of these subsections and the Law be clarified and brought more to the fore. This need not entail trimming or removal--though I'd be much happier if Military/Police and Bureaucracy were made sub-subsections of Executive. I see you have some thematic elements in the sublead of Legal Institutions setting up the existing structure, but I still think it's better to defer to Locke and Montesquieu: the military power and civilian agencies are not generally co-equal branches in their own right.--Monocrat 19:54, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I understand that the question was for Wikipedia, but don't I have the right to express my mind? And my mind is that, in this case (EP, Bundestag, Bundesrat), Wikidea is right and that your comparaison of EP with the ECouncil and the ECom is wrong (And by the way, if we want to categorize the system of the EU, then it is bicameral, because the decisive legislative power is shared between the ECouncil and the EP). I must point out that the structure in the "Institutions" section is of Wikidea and not mine. Therefore, although I agree that the prose could be "more to the point" than it is now, I wouldn't like to take initiatives without having heard his opinion. But you can also take initiatives (especially, if you are a native English speaker, and since you have already nominated and promoted a FA), by initiating prose improvements that would address the concerns of yours as I did during the article's FA review.--Yannismarou 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
And why do you prefer Lula instead of the Chinese premier?!!! Hmmmmmm ?????--Yannismarou 20:20, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps my knowledge of EU institutions is a little out of date. The reason I haven't taken much initiative (although I have tweaked some text here and there) is that I wanted to see if there were any compromises I would be undoing or if I'd be flying in the face of sound reasoning. And also to get other's opinions on the matter. :) As for Hu vs. Lula: No government is perfect, but the Chinese regime, represented by its president, is just a little too nasty for my tastes in this regard. Many regimes avoid the moral odium of the Chinese regime, but I suppose we don't just want to draw from Europe and North America in terms of images, so Brazil and its well regarded president leapt to mind. Lula, Néstor Kirchner (Argentina) or Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (Indonesia) would all be better, methinks. We could also select a head of government instead of head of state.--Monocrat 21:19, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Clearer opening?

I don't want to add to the burden of fixing all the spam that FA status "conveys," so I'm NOT being bold. I'm suggesting that this language:

When mortgaging or renting a house, property law defines people's rights and duties towards a bank or landlord. When earning pensions, trust law protects savings....

Is convoluted as well as ungrammatical (property law doesn't rent houses; trust law doesn't earn pensions). Why not keep the format of the preceding and following sentences? Something like:

Property law defines rights and obligations related to buying, selling, or renting real property such as homes and buildings. Trust law applies to assets held for investment, such as pension funds...

I'm not conversant with the subject matter, so these are only examples of possible rewrites. —OtherDave 01:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I changed it. Lesgles (talk) 17:49, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Small numbers of countries still . . .

. . . base their law on religious scripts.

I am somewehat concerned about the use of these two words, which don't really seem NPOV, and also don't necessarily seem accurate in the sense of being supportable with references. I would suggest a rewrite to:

Some countries base their law on religious scripts.

The word small is fairly meaningless in this context, especially without a reference, though the implication seems to be that such countries are clearly backward, since they are so heavily outnumbered by countries that ignore their people's religious beliefs in making law. Is that even accurate? Or, are the countries with legal systems originating in religion actually in the majority?

The word still seems even more troublesome. Is this suggesting that most countries that once had a system of law based in religion have abandoned their old system? Is it suggesting that no new religiously-based systems of law have been constructed in modern times? I can't believe that either of these suggestions even approaches an accurate representation of reality.

BeeArkKey 05:53, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Law Pic

The picture of Lady Law seems to have changed. I find both representations of her pretty awful. Can someone find a picture that has less emphasis on female sexuality (weird perky breasts or exposed legs)? It's an article on law! --345Kai 10:32, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Tosh and Balderfibble, lets have a picture of a statue of law from a better angle, sexuality be damned, take your prudishness elsewhere. LordFenix 13:17, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

it might be a better representaton of law if we went with somethig other that a outmoded symbol, perhaps a pic of a courthouse or a court room Boatman666 15:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Personally, the photo I like most is the one in the lead of Justice article, but we can't have it in the lead of both articles, can we? Second best, IMO, is the current photo. And I also do not care about sexuality. After all, this is the article about law, isn't it? Where is then the respect for human rights?! Doesn't Lady Justice have the right to be sexy?!! Let's not make discriminations! But I am open to ideas like the one of Boatman, if there are other good photos.--Yannismarou 15:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Kai, would you rather be judged by a sexy lady or a haggard old crone? Vranak

how about this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:STL_oldcourthouse-2.jpg#file Boatman666 03:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I commend you on taking that picture of the dome Boatman, but honestly I think we should leave it as it is. It'd be even better if everyone helped edit the main articles in the page! Wikidea 08:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why...

... is there no section titled 'Criticisms' in this otherwise fine article? There's certainly plenty that can be drawn from Nietzsche's works. On the Genealogy of Morals springs to mind. Vranak

I partly agree with you. I don't think that a "Criticisms" section is necessary, but in "Philosophy of law" we could have these critics, and also more about the Marxist approach.--Yannismarou 17:31, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
I included Nietzche's conception of law in "Philosophy of Law".--Yannismarou 19:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job.
I also recall a few other things Nietzsche said about law... he postulated a future where a man would dictate his own punishment, and of one where a man would not be bound by any laws unless he himself agreed to them a priori. Also, there's the classic "Distrust he in whom the impulse to punish is strong".
Also, I recall a lengthy discussion by Nietzsche, criticizing the notion that criminals have 'free will' to either commit a crime or abstain from it, and that by failing to abstain they must be punished.
Nietzsche also systematically discusses the reasons a society has for punishing lawbreakers. Vranak

[edit] Bureaucracy and Monocrat's objections

Monocrat said:

"As for "Bureaucracy." Yes, it is a field of study and can be a scientific term: it's the title of a major text in public economics. But, when the header of the subsection is taken together with the de Grimm quotation (in short, "the state exists to serve the welfare of bureaucracy") and the [popular negative impression of the term "bureaucracy" http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?sourceid=Mozilla-search&va=bureaucracy] as opposed to "civil service" or "regulatory/executive/administrative agencies," "Cynicism," and "officialdom," I'm left with a negative impression. And I know how executive agencies are related to the law: they enforce the law by force, execute it by order and grant, and expand it through rule and regulation. I would like to know why this is not succinctly and clearly stated. Must I burrow through de Grimm and Weber to divine the relation to the law? The closing sentence of the subsection, "Bureaucracy can play a negative role with ever more 'red tape', or a positive one, by organising public services such as schooling, health care, policing or public transport," is ambiguous (a role in what exactly?) and has only indirect relation to the Law. What I'm asking, and I don't think it's unreasonable, is that the relationship between the topics of these subsections and the Law be clarified and brought more to the fore."

I think that these thoughts should be taken into consideration. Although I disagreed in other matter with Monocrat, I'm afraid that here he may have a point.--Yannismarou 12:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the para about a bit, to try without adding anything to get across what I meant better - and that wasn't at all that we should be cynical about bureaucracy! Hopefully there's less ambiguity now. More generally, it occured to me, perhaps something about administrative law is worth mentioning in there (or even tort, as it relates to public sector stuff) since that's usually focussed entirely on holding the state's apparatus to account. On the de Grimm quote, it's simply something I found randomly and thought was a witty and illuminating intro to what "bureaucracies" are, as well as being a very early use of the word. Wikidea 08:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Length of Article

This article is getting rather long. Has anybody given any thought as to how to "tighten it up" a little? At a glance, it seems like the opening section could be more pointed, and maybe some of the material under history, philosophy, and economics of law could be trimmed? BeeArkKey 14:51, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

While some trimming here and there might be reasonable, the topic is broad enough that I don't think it's necessary to worry much about the size limit. At least until some of the major subarticles are grown sufficiently. In fact, I think some sections need to be increased modestly.--Monocrat 20:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the article is long, but it's one of those ones that is important to have as a long article. Also, what makes it appear long in KB size is the referencing and the pictures, which aren't actually article length itself. What I would really really like is if people looked at this and then went on to the sub articles to edit those. I'm trying to figure out how to put a box at the top of this page to point people in that direction - I think a lot of topics for broad academic pages could well use the same kind of thing. Wikidea 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, count kbs of prose and not the total length of the article. And I agree that its scope is broad, so such a lenght is expected. After all, he article already makes use of WP:SS and no section is too long.--Yannismarou 16:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some parts do seem to go into excessive detail, such as the detailed example of self-defense under "Criminal law". The sections "Contracts", "Tort law", "Property law", and "Trusts and equity", could be significantly compressed without removing anything essential to an overview. They could be combined into a "civil law" section (as opposed to criminal law) or simply added to the list of "disciplines". They could also be trimmed in place by removing or shortening the specific examples which go on for multiple sentences (the wordiness of which is reminiscent of a judicial ruling, and is perhaps somewhat excessive for an encyclopedia). The contents of these sections might make good additions to the introductions or bodies of the sub-articles, though. -- Beland 05:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Roman law and its contribution to 'Western' law

As a legal system, Roman law has affected the development of law in most of Western civilisation as well as in parts of the Eastern world. It also forms the basis for the law codes of most countries of continental Europe ( "Roman law". Encyclopaedia Britannica. ).</ref>

Can another encyclopedia be used as a reference?!--Mrg3105 08:38, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Larry Sanger's Citizendium

I thought that some users might be interested in this, which I find quite comical, to be found on the new Citizendium website, where this law page has been copied verbatim as a start:

"This article, a typical Wikipedia article, attempts to sum up every major area of the law in one article, and as a result simply cannot succeed in providing a clear exposition of any of them. Why should an article about discipline X take the form of a list of definitions of all the subdisciplines of X? It shouldn't. See Biology for a different approach. The topic of the article is not "categories of law," but instead, law. Hence (I think) it should dwell quite a bit on the philosophical question, "What is law?" and introduce some of the problems and subdisciplines of law as part of an interesting narrative about the law. This is difficult, but it's only such an article that will actually satisfy a demand for an article with the title "law." The function of this article is not to act as a table of contents to the rest of law-related articles, but to introduce the topic named in the title, for people who presumably need an introduction. Imagine, for instance, trying to explain what law itself is to a college student who is considering studying the law. I don't have any specific suggestions as to how the article might be structured, but I do think that at present it lacks anything like an interesting, cohesive narrative that might make someone actually want to read it from beginning to end. --Larry Sanger 17:29, 23 February 2007 (CST)"

The link is here. Since I (among others) wrote the vast majority of this page, I'd just like to say for the record that Larry's got it a bit wrong. If he wants an explanation of "what is law" then he needs to look at the Jurisprudence page, which actually, the section on Jurisprudence on the law page explains quite well! (But maybe he didn't read, and just wanted to criticise!) I just came across this as a result of reading a newspaper article today. I wanted to post a message on their page, but I have to register first. That I don't plan to do for the moment, which is why I'm doing it here. There's also talk there of splitting the articles in some way on their page. How funny! The great irony is, that on Citizendium there doesn't seem to be enough expertise yet to know what to do. Hence nothing has happened for 7 months. Why don't their editors just help to improve this page (or not make assumptions about the qualifications of people on Wikipedia)? For the record, I (personally) welcome all the work, from everyone who wants improvement, and all the comments I continue to see here. The good thing about Wikipedia of course is that even if there can be a tendency for "mob rule" in some cases, in most it's also makes content more accountable to what the "mob" might want to know. And no hard feelings on Larry. Wikidea 21:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikidea, why do you feel the need to apologize? The article is revered here in Wikipedia, it has gone through a tough FAC with success, and IMO it is the best encyclopedic article around on its topic (although my structure may indeed have been a bit different than yours). The fact that Citizendium first copies it, and then criticizes it is also another medal for your efforts, and for the efforts of all of us who worked to make this article FA. The best way Mr. Sanger and Mr. Scott Dubin can prove that this article is not good is to write a better article, and not just copy ours (I mean our Wikipedia Community's)! Go for it Mr. Sanger!--Yannismarou 11:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Head section

I re-inserted the socialist and customary law material because I feel it's incomplete to mention civil law and common law as basic distinctions as I believe that those without much background knowledge might assume that all counties fall into one of these two categories. If there's a way to reword the paragraph to convey the meaning I suggest we should express, please feel free. I also was curious about why "religious scripts" was used, but if there's sufficient justification, that would be different. Thank you. --24.211.242.80 14:52, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Property law

I removed following sentences from the section: "The idea of privately owned property is still contentious. French philosopher Pierre Proudhon once famously wrote, "property is theft"." First section (unsourced by the way) gives undue weight to extremely fringe views. Second is also misleading, since Proudhon also said that property is liberty. For more information read Property is theft!. -- Vision Thing -- 21:56, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

For more information, read the book itself! I think you need first of all though to understand the nature of property, with all its shades and degrees. "Private property" is not all as common as you might assume. If your house is heritage listed and you can't change it, is it still really "private"? If a health care company is not allowed to distribute drugs without testing, is it private? Don't tell people that the concept isn't contentious, when your next election is about to be fought on what extent HMOs are allowed to claim that health care is their business and their private property. And if you've got something to add, then find a citation! Wikidea 08:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
You need to find citation for claim that private property is still "contentious". As for Proudhon, he is an obscure philosopher, and to mention him together with John Locke gives undue weight to his fringe views. Not to mention that his views can not be condensed into "property is theft" phrase. -- Vision Thing -- 11:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
What do you suggest then, other than deleting material, and sticking up silly tags? Proudhon might be obscure to you. I think it's you who isn't neutral. Wikidea 11:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Since I know anarchist thought pretty well, I'm aware of Proudhon and his writings. However, he is obscure for the public and mainstream thought. Only other solution that I see is to say that the idea of privately owned property is still contentious in some socialist or left-leaning circles. -- Vision Thing -- 11:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I think you're looking at this the wrong way, it's not just tree hugging pinkos - take a look for instance at Article 14 of the German Constitution - "Property obliges"; or I think it's mentioned in the article itself, Adolf Berle and Gardiner Means book on the Modern Corporation and Private Property - they say that the traditional concept of property has been destroyed. There's a huge strand of people who say the same - which is why that sentence isn't referenced (it's as clear as the day). It's also ironic to contend a statement saying something is not contentious, when to prove your point you are in contention! But I tell you what, taking your suggestion, how about we put up "Private property has remained contentious in the view of a number of thinkers. For example" - that also puts things more in the past tense Wikidea 12:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "has been contentious" is better solution because Proudhon wrote his book in 1840. -- Vision Thing -- 12:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Deal. But I think you'll find that people even today contend these things more than you think. If you want an American example, look up Paul Sweezy, Monopoly Capital. Wikidea 12:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV and UN

The article says "The United Nations, founded under the UN Charter, is the most important international organisation, established after the Treaty of Versailles's failure and World War II." This sounds like an opinion rather than fact. I, for one, would argue that NATO is and has been far more important in setting international law because the UN has so little power to enforce (and enforcement is part of the definition of law given in first sentence of article) so that in practice it is NATO that has more to decide what international law is than the UN. But to maintain NPOV, I would just change this sentence to say something like "The United Nations, founded under the UN Charter after the Treaty of Versailles's failure and World War II, is seen by many as the most important international organisation due to its inclusion of nearly all nations." Readin 01:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It is opinion - you're free to change it as you see fit. I suggest something like "is an important international organisation". John Smith's 20:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Bastiat

Why is Bastiat not mentioned in this article, especially considering this article falls within the scope of wikipedia's philosophy project. Is not the purpose of the law to prevent injustice. Injustice defined as encroachment of life, liberty, and property? --67.11.21.94 (talk) 03:47, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The simple reason is that Bastiat isn't as significant as the people already on the page, and there's limited space, because this is necessarily a summary article. By all means, write something about him on the Philosophy of law page or some of the sub articles! It would be great of you, if you know about the man (the Bastiat article isn't in great shape either!). Wikidea 13:25, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law vs. Morality, Ethics

Where is the distinction between morality, ethics and legality?
Can something be one and not the others? legal but immoral? moral but illegal?
--Kiyarrllston 04:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
PS and does this discussion/question have any place in this article?

I think you'll find some basic discussion under the Philosophy of law section, and a bit more in the main article. The "positivists" say that law and morality are independent concepts. The "natural lawyers" and human rights activists would generally argue that law and morality are interdependent. The discussion gets very complicated. If you take a common sense approach, of course law can be immoral, but then again, what is morality? People have different moralities, and law is a form of morality of its own. Wikidea 12:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)