3 ms·

First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about law

First time I hear this quote, and maybe I don't know the context, but as is, it's a pretty bad quote. It implies that in that court, people care only about laws not justice. That may be so, but if that's the case, that's pretty sad, not something to be proud of.

raxxorraxor 4y ago
It certainly is, especially because without serving justice the law loses its raison d'être. But on the other hand there are reasons why members of the judiciary need to interpret the law to the letter. If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility.
- infamouscow 4y ago
  > If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility. That rarely happens because nearly everyone votes based on what politicians say rather than the substance of their policies. The people always get the government they deserve.
  - raxxorraxor 4y ago
    Of course that is the ideal case. Part of the separation of powers that binds judges to the law and just laws should be passed by political bodies.
    - infamouscow 4y ago
      The only way for that to happen is people elect representatives reflecting the will of the people. If the people elect representatives that don't reflect the will of the people, they can hold their elected representatives accountable and vote for someone else in the next election cycle. But if people continue to re-elect officials that demonstrate not being aligned with their constituents, the people only have themselves to blame. It really is that simple.
rjbwork 4y ago
It's a description of the legal system as a whole. It does not pursue justice, it merely seeks to enforce the laws as written. And I think it's pretty clear that our laws do not seek justice. For, how can locking up a man - a man who has not yet reached his 20th birthday - for years on end in a concrete box for the "crime" of consuming a plant be just?
- zaphar 4y ago
  Justice is the job of the people. We vote, directly or indirectly, on the laws as written. And in the case of jury nullification can bypass the law completely.
  - simondotau 4y ago
    A jury is also the people. Representative democracy is, in my opinion, a significantly worse form of distilling the will of the people into applied justice. If the task is deducing justice from the will of the people, I’d sooner pick a tiny random sampling of the population to make isolated decisions, than the votes of party-affiliated politicians on laws which cannot take into account individual circumstance.
elliekelly 4y ago
It reminds me Scalia’s infamous Troy Davis dissent[1]: > This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable. i.e., Actual innocence is constitutionally irrelevant. [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pd...
- simonh 4y ago
  I think that’s fine, as is the court of law not court of justice line, in context. The court should be focused on the law and process to ensure that it is as fair and objective as possible. However perfect fairness and objectivity is not realistically possible. Where justice comes in is the jury room, and that’s why juries should be free to find whatever outcome they choose, as the representatives of the sovereign citizenry.
  - elliekelly 4y ago
    So if someone is convicted of a crime in a perfectly fair and objective process and we later find conclusive and indisputable evidence that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and entirely innocent it’s perfectly acceptable that they be forced to serve their sentence? Including a death sentence? It’s perfectly acceptable that they have no right to appeal their conviction or sentence on a showing of actual innocence? I think that’s very easy for some people to hand wave away as just “a cost of doing business” in a system of justice but is shockingly and appallingly costly for the people who are unfairly burdened with shouldering that “cost” for the rest of us.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      I believe that hundreds of definitely guilty people should go free to prevent one innocent person from going to prison. Other people feel the opposite way, which is how you get the above statements.
johnnyanmac 4y ago
Justice is an ideal, Law is the compromise taking justice into account. Oftentimes justice may be blocked for the exact reason the parent comment outlies; you have good intentions but the long term ramifications are abused to bring anti-justice. e.g. this is party why the death penalty is so unevenly implemented. Not because some or most people genuinely feel no crime is worth killing a criminal over. But because there are many issues over an irreversible sentence like death when the evidence isn't 100% ironclad.

raxxorraxor 4y ago

It certainly is, especially because without serving justice the law loses its raison d'être. But on the other hand there are reasons why members of the judiciary need to interpret the law to the letter. If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility.

infamouscow 4y ago
> If the laws are wrong or unjust, legislative forces need to change them because it is their responsibility. That rarely happens because nearly everyone votes based on what politicians say rather than the substance of their policies. The people always get the government they deserve.
- raxxorraxor 4y ago
  Of course that is the ideal case. Part of the separation of powers that binds judges to the law and just laws should be passed by political bodies.
  - infamouscow 4y ago
    The only way for that to happen is people elect representatives reflecting the will of the people. If the people elect representatives that don't reflect the will of the people, they can hold their elected representatives accountable and vote for someone else in the next election cycle. But if people continue to re-elect officials that demonstrate not being aligned with their constituents, the people only have themselves to blame. It really is that simple.

rjbwork 4y ago

It's a description of the legal system as a whole. It does not pursue justice, it merely seeks to enforce the laws as written. And I think it's pretty clear that our laws do not seek justice. For, how can locking up a man - a man who has not yet reached his 20th birthday - for years on end in a concrete box for the "crime" of consuming a plant be just?

zaphar 4y ago
Justice is the job of the people. We vote, directly or indirectly, on the laws as written. And in the case of jury nullification can bypass the law completely.
- simondotau 4y ago
  A jury is also the people. Representative democracy is, in my opinion, a significantly worse form of distilling the will of the people into applied justice. If the task is deducing justice from the will of the people, I’d sooner pick a tiny random sampling of the population to make isolated decisions, than the votes of party-affiliated politicians on laws which cannot take into account individual circumstance.

elliekelly 4y ago

It reminds me Scalia’s infamous Troy Davis dissent[1]: > This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent. Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable. i.e., Actual innocence is constitutionally irrelevant. [1]https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/08pdf/08-1443Scalia.pd...

simonh 4y ago
I think that’s fine, as is the court of law not court of justice line, in context. The court should be focused on the law and process to ensure that it is as fair and objective as possible. However perfect fairness and objectivity is not realistically possible. Where justice comes in is the jury room, and that’s why juries should be free to find whatever outcome they choose, as the representatives of the sovereign citizenry.
- elliekelly 4y ago
  So if someone is convicted of a crime in a perfectly fair and objective process and we later find conclusive and indisputable evidence that they are, without a shadow of a doubt, completely and entirely innocent it’s perfectly acceptable that they be forced to serve their sentence? Including a death sentence? It’s perfectly acceptable that they have no right to appeal their conviction or sentence on a showing of actual innocence? I think that’s very easy for some people to hand wave away as just “a cost of doing business” in a system of justice but is shockingly and appallingly costly for the people who are unfairly burdened with shouldering that “cost” for the rest of us.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    I believe that hundreds of definitely guilty people should go free to prevent one innocent person from going to prison. Other people feel the opposite way, which is how you get the above statements.

johnnyanmac 4y ago

Justice is an ideal, Law is the compromise taking justice into account. Oftentimes justice may be blocked for the exact reason the parent comment outlies; you have good intentions but the long term ramifications are abused to bring anti-justice. e.g. this is party why the death penalty is so unevenly implemented. Not because some or most people genuinely feel no crime is worth killing a criminal over. But because there are many issues over an irreversible sentence like death when the evidence isn't 100% ironclad.