Pages: [1]

Police Officer vs Law Student
Posts: 7 Views: 890

Wintermoot
  • Regional Stability Squad
  • The Greyscale Magi-Monk
  • With all the talk of the police lately, I thought it would be interesting to bring up this article that I ran into. While the incident did not result in anyone getting killed, I found it interesting that the person being pulled over is a Harvard grad and a law student that knew his rights and the law and was able to articulate them in a legal manner. There was a number of things in the article that I thought were...disturbing in general.

    1) 16 internal affairs cases against this one officer? How many does it take before something happens?

    2) At least three times in the exchange, the law student is able to better quote the law than the officer, particularly on laws that had changed in the last few years. It makes me curious as to what sort of courses officers have to go through to keep up to date on the laws, if any. And conversely, it's a shame that one has to be a law student to protect themselves...how many people would just not know better and pay the fines?

    3) It's obvious that this offer's actions are driven by emotions...I'm sure nobody on the force is happy when they hear the lyrics 'fuck tha police', but it's obvious that this particular person was pissed off over it, and then even more pissed off that he was dealing with someone that knew the law, to the point that it seems he made up additional things to hand out tickets for...

    Overall, I'm conflicted on the whole police issue...I'm sure there are great officers out there, and there are bad apples in any profession...bad teachers, bad soldiers, bad pilots, and bad cops...but this article in particular points to systematic issues here. You have an officer that doesn't know the law, that has apparently had at least sixteen other issues that has been investigated without sufficient punishment, and that obviously isn't being properly supervised or overseen in spite of these known issues. It's concerning, to say the least...


    I went all the way to Cassadega to commune with the dead
    They said "You'd better look alive"
    Wintermoot
    • The Greyscale Magi-Monk
    • Posts: 19,332
    • Karma: 9,613
    • Weather: ❄️
    • Regional Stability Squad
    • Pronouns
      He/Him/His
      Orientation
      Demisexual
      Wintreath Nation
      Logged
    Chanku
  • Citizen
  • The main issue with him not getting any reprimands is that most states have investigations by those that are close to the police department, and sometimes the officers. Therefore we run into a conflict of interest and more than likely all wrong-doing is cleared.

    We also have another issue is that generally to be a cop you have to have be within a certain IQ range(at least that's what I've heard, this may or may not be true) and being higher than a certain IQ makes it harder to become one(again this is all here-say, may not be true).

    We also have the issue with the fact that, as it's shown somewhat through recent events, there seem to be a lot of police that have issues with excessive force and may even think that they can do a lot of what they want because they are the police and their behaviors are rarely checked.

    There have been instances where the DoJ has stepped in police areas because of issues of force and corruption...(Can't remember the source or place at this time that I am remembering).

    See you later space cowboy.
    Old Signature

     
    Current Positions in Wintreath
    Matriarch of House Kaizer
    Speaker of the 29th Underhusen
    Advisor to the Riksråd
    Positions I've held
    Riksrad(1st Jarl of Information, 3rd Jarl of Foreign Affairs, 2nd Jarl of Defense)
    Member of the WHR
    Speaker of the Underhusen (3rd)
    Speaker Pro Tempore of the Underhusen (1st)
    Underhusen Member (1st-3rd)
    Member of the 5th Overhusen
    Chairman of the 5th Overhusen
    6th Underhusen
    Speaker of the 6th Underhusen
    Mandate Holder for Jarl of Defense
    Member of the 8th Storting (Underhusen)
    Royalty of Wintreath
    Ambassador for the Department of Foreign Affairs.
    Underhusen Terms I've been a part of
    1st Underhusen
    2nd Underhusen
    3rd Underhusen
    6th Underhusen
    8th Underhusen
    Overhusen Terms I've been a part of
    5th Overhusen
    Families I've been a part of
    Kaizer - Matriarch (REFORMED)
    Kestar - Child of Wintermoot (REMOVED)
    Chanku
    PB
  • Paragons
  • This is really ridiculous.  I'm annoyed by the fact that thousands of anti-police individuals just got some of the best ammo they could ever get from this poorly-educated bully that should never have become a cop.  This guy really represents some of the worst parts modern police officers. 

    I'll bite, WM. 

    1) 16 internal affairs cases against this one officer? How many does it take before something happens?
    Note the article doesn't state whether these complaints were founded or unfounded (guilty/not guilty, essentially).  Also, we have to keep in mind that some people have the mindset...: "Hello Ma'am how are you to-" "AM I BEING DETAINED I DON'T CONSENT TO SEARCHES I KNOW MY RIGHTS FUCK THE PIGS!"

    2) At least three times in the exchange, the law student is able to better quote the law than the officer, particularly on laws that had changed in the last few years. It makes me curious as to what sort of courses officers have to go through to keep up to date on the laws, if any. And conversely, it's a shame that one has to be a law student to protect themselves...how many people would just not know better and pay the fines?
    That is unfortunate.  I can't speak for Florida, but I know Pennsylvania requires in-service training for all municipal officers.  The classes vary, but every cop has to go through them.  Also, Florida's Department of Law Enforcement (state Department of Justice, pretty much) publishes legal notices and case briefs to help officers stay up-to-date on the law.  We all know the saying about leading a horse to water...  Then again, that applies to the public as well.  You don't have to be a law student to know the law like this guy.  It does, however, take some initiative about navigating your state legislature's website, something a lot of people lack. 

    3) It's obvious that this offer's actions are driven by emotions...I'm sure nobody on the force is happy when they hear the lyrics 'fuck tha police', but it's obvious that this particular person was pissed off over it, and then even more pissed off that he was dealing with someone that knew the law, to the point that it seems he made up additional things to hand out tickets for...
    Like I said before, a person with this sort of personality should never become a cop.  That's why it usually takes 6 months to a year to get hired - they want to make sure you're not going to shoot people every day or be a total asshole because you can.  I really doubt this guy is going to survive this one...

    Also, Chanku, you're right that cops do tend to get the benefit of the doubt in internal investigations, that isn't the rule.  Many towns have started using citizen review boards or assigning the next highest agency to do the investigation (e.g., Sheriff's investigates locals, state investigates sheriff).  Oh, and this:
    We also have another issue is that generally to be a cop you have to have be within a certain IQ range(at least that's what I've heard, this may or may not be true) and being higher than a certain IQ makes it harder to become one(again this is all here-say, may not be true).
    Is 100% false.  Whoever told you this was 'avin a right good giggle, m8. 
    PB
    • Posts: 1,760
    • Karma: 373
    • Paragons
    • Pronouns
      He/Him/His
      Wintreath Nation
      Logged
    Chanku
  • Citizen
  • Also, Chanku, you're right that cops do tend to get the benefit of the doubt in internal investigations, that isn't the rule.  Many towns have started using citizen review boards or assigning the next highest agency to do the investigation (e.g., Sheriff's investigates locals, state investigates sheriff).
    Yeah, which tbh I have issue with. Although there are changes it's still the norm to have police investigated by people with CoI's (at least that what it seems like). Although I do disagree with the leeway given to Cops at times...
    Quote
    Oh, and this:
    We also have another issue is that generally to be a cop you have to have be within a certain IQ range(at least that's what I've heard, this may or may not be true) and being higher than a certain IQ makes it harder to become one(again this is all here-say, may not be true).
    Is 100% false.  Whoever told you this was 'avin a right good giggle, m8.
    Alright well again it was here-say so I was unsure about it. I mainly put it here to as at some point it might have been brought up. Better to get it out of the way now :/
    See you later space cowboy.
    Old Signature

     
    Current Positions in Wintreath
    Matriarch of House Kaizer
    Speaker of the 29th Underhusen
    Advisor to the Riksråd
    Positions I've held
    Riksrad(1st Jarl of Information, 3rd Jarl of Foreign Affairs, 2nd Jarl of Defense)
    Member of the WHR
    Speaker of the Underhusen (3rd)
    Speaker Pro Tempore of the Underhusen (1st)
    Underhusen Member (1st-3rd)
    Member of the 5th Overhusen
    Chairman of the 5th Overhusen
    6th Underhusen
    Speaker of the 6th Underhusen
    Mandate Holder for Jarl of Defense
    Member of the 8th Storting (Underhusen)
    Royalty of Wintreath
    Ambassador for the Department of Foreign Affairs.
    Underhusen Terms I've been a part of
    1st Underhusen
    2nd Underhusen
    3rd Underhusen
    6th Underhusen
    8th Underhusen
    Overhusen Terms I've been a part of
    5th Overhusen
    Families I've been a part of
    Kaizer - Matriarch (REFORMED)
    Kestar - Child of Wintermoot (REMOVED)
    Chanku
    Wintermoot
  • Regional Stability Squad
  • The Greyscale Magi-Monk
  • This is really ridiculous.  I'm annoyed by the fact that thousands of anti-police individuals just got some of the best ammo they could ever get from this poorly-educated bully that should never have become a cop.  This guy really represents some of the worst parts modern police officers. 

    I'll bite, WM. 

    Note the article doesn't state whether these complaints were founded or unfounded (guilty/not guilty, essentially).  Also, we have to keep in mind that some people have the mindset...: "Hello Ma'am how are you to-" "AM I BEING DETAINED I DON'T CONSENT TO SEARCHES I KNOW MY RIGHTS FUCK THE PIGS!"
    But what are the odds that out of 16 cases all of them were unfounded and he was innocent? Especially given the facts in this case as presented? I don't think the odds are very high...and even if he was found guilty in just one of the cases, it's surprising that he wasn't subject to at least more supervision or given a different position that does not deal with the public. It translates to almost a case a year against him...

    That is unfortunate.  I can't speak for Florida, but I know Pennsylvania requires in-service training for all municipal officers.  The classes vary, but every cop has to go through them.  Also, Florida's Department of Law Enforcement (state Department of Justice, pretty much) publishes legal notices and case briefs to help officers stay up-to-date on the law.  We all know the saying about leading a horse to water...  Then again, that applies to the public as well.  You don't have to be a law student to know the law like this guy.  It does, however, take some initiative about navigating your state legislature's website, something a lot of people lack.
    It is unfortunate...as a police officer, part of his profession is to keep up on changes in law, just as I'm expected to keep up on advances in computer science to keep my skills relevant as a programmer. I'm not sure that the public in general has time to read state and federal laws as they go through the government, though...usually they're large and arcane, and it's no secret that usually the legislators don't even read them before voting on them...at best they depend on aides to go through legislation, and how many times have legislatures claimed to not know what was in something they voted on, or claimed it was pushed through too fast to read?

    And if the people making the laws can't read them, what hope does the common person have to keep up with them? Unless they're specifically studying the field, of course, as law students do and police officers (and legislators) should.

    Like I said before, a person with this sort of personality should never become a cop.  That's why it usually takes 6 months to a year to get hired - they want to make sure you're not going to shoot people every day or be a total asshole because you can.  I really doubt this guy is going to survive this one...
    Yet he did become a cop...and not only did he become a cop, he survived 16 years of investigations into various affairs involving him. I don't think the point of the article was that he was a bad apple amongst many, but that  there might be systematic problems that allowed someone who shouldn't become a cop to become one. There are bad apples in every field, but it just seems that with all the internal attention focused on him that at some point he should have been weeded out.


    I went all the way to Cassadega to commune with the dead
    They said "You'd better look alive"
    Wintermoot
    • The Greyscale Magi-Monk
    • Posts: 19,332
    • Karma: 9,613
    • Weather: ❄️
    • Regional Stability Squad
    • Pronouns
      He/Him/His
      Orientation
      Demisexual
      Wintreath Nation
      Logged
    Seroim
  • Former Citizen
  • Quote
    2) At least three times in the exchange, the law student is able to better quote the law than the officer, particularly on laws that had changed in the last few years. It makes me curious as to what sort of courses officers have to go through to keep up to date on the laws, if any. And conversely, it's a shame that one has to be a law student to protect themselves...how many people would just not know better and pay the fines?

    Quote
    You don't have to be a law student to know the law like this guy.  It does, however, take some initiative about navigating your state legislature's website, something a lot of people lack.

    Quote
    It is unfortunate...as a police officer, part of his profession is to keep up on changes in law, just as I'm expected to keep up on advances in computer science to keep my skills relevant as a programmer. I'm not sure that the public in general has time to read state and federal laws as they go through the government, though...usually they're large and arcane, and it's no secret that usually the legislators don't even read them before voting on them...at best they depend on aides to go through legislation, and how many times have legislatures claimed to not know what was in something they voted on, or claimed it was pushed through too fast to read?

    And if the people making the laws can't read them, what hope does the common person have to keep up with them? Unless they're specifically studying the field, of course, as law students do and police officers (and legislators) should.

    This will be a long post and my aim is to answer all of you at the same time. I hope I succeed.

    The police don't know the laws, but largely it's not even their fault. They know them a bit better than we do since it's their job, but largely, in a lot of domains they are as much in the dark as we are. Everyone thinks that they do a lot of stuff out of malice, but it's more out of ignorance. How many cases are thrown out because a police officer did a search that was considered abusive? Do you really think the police is willfully violating your rights because they can or that they are all stupid pigs? In some cases, that might be about right, but in the majority, not only do they not know the fine details of the law, but they are reacting under stress.

    For example, here in Canada, every search must be authorized by the law, the person searched or a warrant, else it's abusive. I think it's the Collins case that sets out these criterion. The law includes not only statutes, but also the common law, which is a mix of unwritten tradition and jurisprudence. Searches after an arrest are authorized, as are searches with probable cause if authorized by law. However, searching somebody who is only detained, not arrested, is abusive unless it's a pat down to look for weapons, and even then, the police officer must have reasonable reasons to believe his security is compromised. There is much, much more to it.

    Anyway, in a case called R. v. Mann, some guy was walking around and was approached by police who thought he looked quite like the description of a guy who committed a crime nearby. They asked him to identify himself, asked more questions, etc. They asked if they could pat him down for weapons, he said yes. When patting him down, they felt a bulge in his pocket, they put their hand in and found a nice pot baggie. In the other pocket that they searched due to now having probable cause, they found empty baggies, obviously for dealing. He was arrested. The conviction by the Court of Appeals was overturned by the Supreme Court because the police didn't have the right to search Mann's pockets during a pat down and they had no reason to believe he'd have drugs on him.

    This case makes two things clear : the legal extent of the pat down search, the rights of detainees as applied to searches and the right of the citizen to refuse to answer questions when approached by the police and simply detained. Another subsequent case forces detainees to identify themselves, no more.

    Another thing that is clear, and this is why I'm writing about it, is that the police didn't know they couldn't search the guy's pockets during a pat down. They weren't out to violate Mann's rights on purpose. They weren't malicious or bastards. They simply lucked out by finding weed and thought "hey, he's got weed with intent to sell, let's arrest this guy". Why didn't they know?

    The simple answer is that law is a clusterfuck. Not only is it in constant evolution, day after day, but legal tests mandated by the Courts are often so sweeping that no police officer can apply them while on duty. It's simply impossible. When judging, the courts have the advantage of being able to think about the case for months, of having 20/20 hindsight and of being in their comfy offices away from the action. Common law courts solely adjudicate on a case by case basis that is impossible for a police officer to follow. Especially in regards to searches, courts often adopt tests with such vague criterion as "every pertinent circumstances must be taken into account" and "reasonable belief". What are these pertinent circumstances? Judges give us a list, spread among an incredibly thick body of jurisprudence, of course prefaced with "these circumstances are not exhaustive", so there might be more that we don't know about. Judges typically leave cases wide open, refusing to adjudicate fully on them, give out a definitive answer, as to let subsequent jurisprudence evolve and tack on more shit to the concept. What is reasonable belief? No one knows. There is no real definition, only clues spread in the whole body of jurisprudence. Lawyers have to spend years and years learning about their chosen specialty, and that's after 3 years of law school. Judges sometimes will follow one guideline they themselves set out and then create another one in another case, only to switch back to the first guideline. Police officers have no hope of ever keeping up with the law, no matter how much continuous, on-the-job training they get, and even if they do, they are expected to apply convoluted, complicated guidelines expressed in multiple 50 pages long rulings under stress. I'm sorry, but no one can do that.

    You don't even need to be under stress to fuck up law. Look around the Internet and you'd need everybody on the planet to be able to count using fingers how many wrong interpretations of the US Constitution there are floating about. We're not even talking about false interpretation of the tax code or the zillions of other laws on the book. It's lunacy to claim that it just takes "some initiative" to learn the law. The United States Code, the body of federal law has hundreds of thousands of sections. The Tax Code alone is 73,000 pages. Add to that the State laws and it's a major, major fucked up situation.

    There is no other profession or field of study where it is acceptable to have a statute say one thing, and a completely different document part of a completely different process say another thing that invalidates what the statute says. The law student said that all laws banning loud music have been struck down by the Supreme Court in 2012, but I'm 100% willing to bet that these laws are still on the books. This is crucial. The striking down of a section by the judicial branch is treated as an abrogation but that fact is quite rarely marked on the law itself. For example, in Canada, section 299(c) of the Criminal Code was struck down by the Supreme Court, but if you consult the Criminal Code itself, you'd have no idea as the section wasn't abrogated by Parliament. It's still there. There's no mention of the striking down. One article I've found contends that the full text of section 229, including (c), was sometimes given to juries, who didn't know that it was abrogated, and handed down convictions influenced by this paragraph that were never overturned because the convictions were actually technically based on another paragraph. This is the equivalent of finding out that Einstein's Law of Relativity is in fact wrong, but it still being taught as fact in physics classes.

    Couple that with another fact : it takes training to understand law. There are no two ways around it. Non-jurists think that they can read statutes and know the law, but as I've shown above, they are mistaken. Statutes aren't an exact representation of the state of the law, because not only can they be struck down by the courts with no mention given in the actual law, but they can also be interpreted by them, changing crucial points, without the written statute being modified to take this into account. Jurists explain that this way : since jurisprudence is as much a source of law as legislation, it's quite redundant to modify the statute when any jurist worth his salt will also take jurisprudence into account. But what about the common folk?

    Even those with enough drive to search the humongous body of jurisprudence, enough persistence to learn to navigate it, enough knowledge to know what to actually look for and read them in full encounter another problem : Legalese isn't English. I've been taught in law school that law is like learning a foreign language. That's not too far from the truth with the added caveat that if we were to create a dictionary of law (that already exists : Black's, for instance), there would be multiple words with vague definitions or no definition at all! Dictionaries are useful because the definition therein are concise, representative, complete and have a scientific level of precision. You can never, ever achieve such a level of precision in law as it is now practiced. A word might mean x in one instance, y in another, except if something happens, then it's z. Lawyers can barely keep up; how is police supposed to?

    This isn't new though. Again, jurists will attempt to explain this by saying that law is such a specialized field that the ordinary sense of words has to be modified to take into account its legal meaning. This is complete horseshit. Law, like many other fields, has taken on the mantle of "science" to legitimize itself. One can see that happening in many fields : psychology, for instance, where the topic is still hotly debated (I personally think it's an art or a field of study, not a science) or even teaching, whose faculty at my university is called "faculty of educational sciences". Perhaps more telling are fields like ufology or parapsychology that attempt to use the word "science" to make them look less kooky. For law, there's a lot of reasons for that, but the crux lies in two things : first, the word "science" carries with it a certain prestige in an era where humanities (which is what law really is - a field of study, or an art, not a science) are belittled and derided as inferior fields. Second, the word "science" allows the field's practitioners to justify the fact that it is hard to understand as a neophyte. Few non-scientists are familiar with the slew of procedures that accompany the scientific method in hard science domains, and fewer yet understand the meaning of scientific language. While in science, that is born out of necessity, as science explores concepts that no natural language had words for since their reality was either imperceptible to humans before technology, or unable to be discovered before advances in the scientific method (take for examples the words associated with biological classification : domain, kingdom, phylum and so on, that were created following an advanced understanding of evolution, discovered by the application of the scientific method), in law, that is born out of vanity. It's nothing less than an attempt to legitimize discrimination of non-jurists by jurists by making the body of study unintelligible except to initiates.

    Now I understand that I might be looked at as somewhat insane for thinking that this is the case, but not only is my opinion corroborated by many legal thinkers, who have less of an interest in keeping the field so arcane since they don't practice, but I also bear proof.

    My evidence goes back all the way to 1066. Anyone who knows the least bit about history knows that I'm talking about the conquest of England by William the Conqueror, a Norman (as an aside, I'm myself of Norman descent). Normandy was settled by Vikings who ended up completely assimilating into French society. Thus, they spoke a variety of French. William and his entourage spoke French. The Conqueror himself didn't spend all that much time in England, but appointed fellow Normans to the state apparatus. Obviously, these Normans didn't speak English, so for a time, England was effectively ruled by a French elite cut off from their English-speaking subjects. This is still evident today just by looking at the United Kingdom's motto that appears on the Royal Seal : "Dieu et mon droit", "God and my right" in French, and the very state of the English language : 30% of all English words are of French origin, and 30% more were borrowed from Latin.

    The Norman elite ended up never learning English. This "bilingual" state of affairs lasted for around 300 years, until the country's elite was composed again of Englishmen. However, and this is the crux of my argument : courts obviously being part of a country's governing power (it's the third branch : executive, legislative, judicial), during Norman rule, trials were held in French. Whereas the French language was completely abandoned by the ruling elite as soon as the English got to rule themselves again, there is one profession that stubbornly held out and continued to use French for hundreds of years after its abandonment by everyone else. They even developed a completely new register of French that was incomprehensible by the French themselves. That, my friends, was the legal profession.

    There are many scholarly works on the subject, but I've personally only read one, "Legal Language" by Peter Tiersma. He gives three reasons as to why lawyers would keep using French : the retention of French technical vocabulary instead of the creation of English neologisms (complete bullshit, as lawyers, not being French themselves, had everything to gain by switching to their mother tongue), the protection of the public since they couldn't read French and therefore couldn't interpret the laws in the wrong manner (again, complete bullshit, as the interpretation of laws by commoners never carried any legal weight and their thoughts on it wouldn't manner anyway as an ancient presumption still in effect states that "every citizen knows the law", and therefore cannot argue ignorance of it), and finally, the one both I and Tiersma adopt : an attempt to create a monopoly by hiding the law behind a foreign language.

    Think about it. What would happen in the law was written intelligibly for any citizen to perfectly understand? Lawyers would be out of a job. They absolutely would not be needed. As the language of governance switched to the language of the governees, lawyers had their panties in a bunch since that meant that the lowest commoner, provided he knew how to read, would be able to *gasp* understand his rights and obligations. Lawyers, as interpreters of the law, would not be needed anymore. Basically, as is sound business in any field, the middleman would be cut. Does that remind you of a familiar story? It's the same reason why the Catholic Church not only banned the individual possession of Bibles for a long time, but kept Latin as a liturgical language. If commoners didn't need to rely on the priests to understand the Bible and what standard God holds them to (see the parallel?), the Church would fall as the middleman would be cut. Not only that, but commoners would also realize that the Bible says nothing about the Vicar of Christ, says nothing about a slew of Catholic traditions invented during the Council of Nicaea, and better yet, condemns some practices such as the interference of the Church in matters of governance (the "render unto Caesar" quote) and their own shady dealings such as the sale of indulgences.

    As the legal field evolved and it was decreed by numerous authors and specialists that having the law written in a language different from that used by the population who are expected to follow the law was a slight on natural precepts of justice, and as commoners became more and more literate and educated, thus became more dangerous, the law of England gradually switched to English. However, the first problem still remained : educated commoners could read the law themselves. Lawyers came up with a genius idea : perhaps the laws must be written in English and the courts have to hold trials in English, but it doesn't have to be the same English. Legalese was born.

    The fact is that the power to name things and define words is humongous. Jurists have abused this power seemingly in an effort to make the field as complicated as humanely possible. In fact, as law is a part of humanities, just like linguistics and language studies, there is absolutely zero legal concept that cannot be named just as legibly using plain English. Why does the word "presumption" (an educated guess) have a different meaning in law (a legal rule enforced on one party by the law that either has to be overturned by the afflicted party or cannot be overturned at all)? A presumption is the legal sense is much more aptly described by the words "rule" or "condition". This is just an example; there's zillions of them. A more telling example is the retention of completely basic rules of law still expressed in Latin; the so-called "legal maxims". "Nemo judex in causa sua", for instance, which simply means "no one shall adjudicate in his own cause", aka a ban conflicts of interests. "Audi alteram partem", which translates as "hear the other side", aka give a fair hearing, and so on. Why do we need Latin to express these concepts? Not only are they universal, but they are also readily understandable in English.

    Law has always been an elitist field. There's many other barriers to keep the pleb out. One only has to look at the amount of top lawyers that not only come from a dynasty of lawyers, but are members of the upper class. Getting a J.D. in America costs at least a hundred thousand dollars, and the ABA keeps diddling with statistics to make it seem like it's a dynamic field full of jobs and opportunities to attract the pleb, but unless you're a member of the upper class and have connections or simply a legal genius, you will not get a good job and will be stuck practicing shitlaw for $20 an hour, kept in debt servitude forever. The most comprehensive jurisprudence databases like Quicklaw or Westlaw cost a pretty penny to consult unless you're a law student with access from your university (this is changing with the LII projects, such as CanLII, which maintains a completely free of charge legal database with jurisprudence, statutes, etc, but I'm not sure there's an equivalent in America, and even then, CanLII is pretty incomplete when it comes to business law, fiscal law or labour law). Reference works cost hundreds of dollars and you'll have to get a lot of them anyway. With the Internet, access to legal doctrine is becoming easier and easier since the Internet is the great "democratizer", but people still have to be able to understand what's going on.

    Keeping up with law isn't like keeping up with computer science - CS texts are readable and clear. Legal texts aren't. CS doesn't strike down vast portions of its body of knowledge on a daily basis, sometimes including it again afterwards. Law does. It's an entirely different beast.

    Law hasn't changed and will never change - its purpose will always be to make itself as unintelligible as possible. Lawyers draft laws. Representatives don't read them - why? First, it's useless because they can't understand them. With exceptions, elected representatives usually aren't stupid. It's their job to read that, and they can't. Second, not only are the laws "large and arcane" as Moot put it, but there's a huge volume of them being enacted every day, meaning that representatives don't even have the time to read all this shit coupled with their other tasks.

    If law becomes easily understandable (as it should be), the vast majority of lawyers are out of a job. Law is by lawyers, for lawyers. It's not by the people, for the people or even by lawyers, for the people. I think that it's obvious that any given text should be written with the intended audience in mind, and the intended audience of law is the governed who need to know their rights and obligations. In short, people like you first of all, and people like me second. That's like writing a teenage novel understandable only by holders of Ph.D.s in English. It makes no sense. It's really as simple as that.

    You are 100% right that you can only defend yourself and your rights if you are a law student, unless you've got some kind of inhuman drive to learn law and read reference works before going to sleep, and that's all done on purpose by lawyers. I hope I proved that point with this post. There's a movement towards simple English for law, but the fact that this isn't a widely asked for change kind of proves my point. It's so simple, it reeks of common sense, and above all, it is the fairer path for everyone to take, yet it isn't being done. Law doesn't want to change, because if it does, lawyers will sweat buckets over the fact that they are suddenly of little use. It's incredibly petty and I think people all over should be offended and demand some heads.

    I myself, left the legal field because of this. I was disgusted at the mentality of the legal professions, how lawyers think that they are the shit, superior to everyone else, etc. Law attracts power-hungry, sociopathic, narcissistic types. Obviously, they will seek to entrench their power. I couldn't deal with them or the field anymore. It's dishonest to its core. I've been in contact with people in my new faculty, translation, and the difference is already evident. People are very friendly and teamwork seems to be held to a high standard even though translation is a pretty solitary job. I was told the master's program is very, very tight-knit and that people help each other and get along perfectly. The faculty staff support their students by giving them translation contracts. Most of all, the theory is readable. It's already a pretty far cry from the competitiveness, elitism, nepotism and flexible morality I experienced during my time in the LL.B.
    1 person likes this post: Colberius X
    « Last Edit: December 25, 2014, 07:51:55 AM by Seroim »
    Seroim
    • Posts: 543
    • Karma: 195
    • The Court Derpster
    • Former Citizen
    • Pronouns
      He/Him/His
      Wintreath Nation
      Logged
    Colberius X
  • Citizen
  • Servant of Order
  • This makes all too much sense.  That was quite thought-provoking, and the best explanation of it that I've seen. I have some interest in law, so I've done Mock Trial for four years, and even the legal terms we have to learn for that are ridiculous. I can't fathom how indecipherable true legalese is.

    Very well-put, Seroim.


    First Patriarch of the Noble House of Valeria - Founded 5.06.2015
    Former Peer of the Overhusen - Served 4.17.2015 until 6.08.2016
    Recipient of the Wintreath Commendation - Awarded 11.02.2017



    Lord Inquisitor
    Ambassador of New Hyperion
    Colberius X
    • Servant of Order
    • Posts: 950
    • Karma: 338
    • I serve the balance, and through it the Force shall guide me.
    • Citizen
    • Pronouns
      He/Him/His
      Familial House
      Valeria
      Representing
      Wintreath Nation
      Logged
     
    Pages: [1]