5 ms·

Then why do we even have laws? Seriously. If they're completely capricious, what good are they?

jcranmer 6y ago
They're not completely capricious. Laws don't operate under the confines of a strict propositional calculus: you don't follow strict axiomatic derivations to a contradiction and declare yourself finished. Instead, it operates generally on a basis that cases with facts in common should have the same decision (hence the name "common law"). And the law is written with this process in mind: if legislators don't like the judicial interpretation of their text, they can change it by changing the law.
- MegaButts 6y ago
  I get that they can change the law. But instead of changing the law, they gave him a plea deal on the condition he didn't contest it at a higher court. So why not change the law when there's an obvious loophole?
  - ghaff 6y ago
    According to the article, at one point the Wyoming senator did try to get it changed but no one was interested. I expect the answer with this sort of thing is that there are a lot of people in Congress who would roll their eyes and say that they have better things to do than screw around with some weird legal edge case that has basically never actually been a problem. And they're not necessarily wrong.
- ahepp 6y ago
  I mean, I know laws can be interpreted. But we're talking about what seems like a pretty straightforward section of the constitution. What's even more damning is that there's no interest in resolving the contradiction. If this had been discovered during a murder trial where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, and simply a jurisdiction loophole, I'd be sympathetic to saying "let's just sweep it under the rug". But if it's known and the response is simply "eh, well if it happens we'll just ignore the constitution because 'common law'", that really reduces my respect for what the law is.
pinipedman 6y ago
The purpose of a legal system is not preventing people from doing things deemed illegal. Its purpose is the maintenance and expansion of state power. Laws are not designed for your benefit. If you benefit from a law that is merely incidental. Laws are just a facade to legitimize, in the eyes of the populace, the state enforcing its will. The state writes the laws in their own interest so that the majority of the time it serves them to remain within legal bounds. And the majority of the times a state violates its own laws are not made public until years later, if at all, negating public outcry. In this way the citizenry remains placid and is willing to overlook the few events in which a state publicly flouts the law.

They're not completely capricious. Laws don't operate under the confines of a strict propositional calculus: you don't follow strict axiomatic derivations to a contradiction and declare yourself finished. Instead, it operates generally on a basis that cases with facts in common should have the same decision (hence the name "common law"). And the law is written with this process in mind: if legislators don't like the judicial interpretation of their text, they can change it by changing the law.

MegaButts 6y ago
I get that they can change the law. But instead of changing the law, they gave him a plea deal on the condition he didn't contest it at a higher court. So why not change the law when there's an obvious loophole?
- ghaff 6y ago
  According to the article, at one point the Wyoming senator did try to get it changed but no one was interested. I expect the answer with this sort of thing is that there are a lot of people in Congress who would roll their eyes and say that they have better things to do than screw around with some weird legal edge case that has basically never actually been a problem. And they're not necessarily wrong.
ahepp 6y ago
I mean, I know laws can be interpreted. But we're talking about what seems like a pretty straightforward section of the constitution. What's even more damning is that there's no interest in resolving the contradiction. If this had been discovered during a murder trial where there was overwhelming evidence of guilt, and simply a jurisdiction loophole, I'd be sympathetic to saying "let's just sweep it under the rug". But if it's known and the response is simply "eh, well if it happens we'll just ignore the constitution because 'common law'", that really reduces my respect for what the law is.

pinipedman 6y ago

The purpose of a legal system is not preventing people from doing things deemed illegal. Its purpose is the maintenance and expansion of state power. Laws are not designed for your benefit. If you benefit from a law that is merely incidental. Laws are just a facade to legitimize, in the eyes of the populace, the state enforcing its will. The state writes the laws in their own interest so that the majority of the time it serves them to remain within legal bounds. And the majority of the times a state violates its own laws are not made public until years later, if at all, negating public outcry. In this way the citizenry remains placid and is willing to overlook the few events in which a state publicly flouts the law.