For starters, this chapter, like the previous, deals mostly with lofty and abstract ideals and definitions, which I am not generally a fan of, no matter the topic. I am a realist in all senses of the word; therefore, I too, am one of those legal realists Dr. Ball keeps referring to in class. That said, I am assuredly learning quite a lot about an interesting subject, despite my personal preferences.
The introduction aptly illustrates "the tensions between the legal positivists and natural law advocates," as exemplified throughout the Nazi regime during World War II, in order to introduce the audience to the argument over wisdom and enforcement of some "'universal standards' with which all cultures must comply." Did the Allied forces have the right to try Nazi war criminals for "crimes [which were] legal under positivist Nazi law, [but] violated universal principles of civilized behavior and human dignity"? (p.27) My opinion: yes, they did, and, yes, we do.
In my lifetime, humanity has faced at least one atrocity in kind to the Holocaust: genocide in Darfur. This video link is a slightly sensationalized, but altogether impressive call to action against the widespread and systematic murder, rape, abduction, and displacement of thousands and thousands of humans.
The introduction aptly illustrates "the tensions between the legal positivists and natural law advocates," as exemplified throughout the Nazi regime during World War II, in order to introduce the audience to the argument over wisdom and enforcement of some "'universal standards' with which all cultures must comply." Did the Allied forces have the right to try Nazi war criminals for "crimes [which were] legal under positivist Nazi law, [but] violated universal principles of civilized behavior and human dignity"? (p.27) My opinion: yes, they did, and, yes, we do.
In my lifetime, humanity has faced at least one atrocity in kind to the Holocaust: genocide in Darfur. This video link is a slightly sensationalized, but altogether impressive call to action against the widespread and systematic murder, rape, abduction, and displacement of thousands and thousands of humans.
http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=19692949
Beyond introductions, I also found Distributive justice interesting and relevant. I repeatedly hear Aristotle's definition of "just" welfare echoed by modern politicians, news correspondents, teachers, and and politically-aware citizens. According to Aristotle, "Help for the disabled, the temporarily unemployed, and for the formerly productive who by no fault of their own lack the capacity to function independently is considered just ... because such people have earned it by their past efforts."
Beyond introductions, I also found Distributive justice interesting and relevant. I repeatedly hear Aristotle's definition of "just" welfare echoed by modern politicians, news correspondents, teachers, and and politically-aware citizens. According to Aristotle, "Help for the disabled, the temporarily unemployed, and for the formerly productive who by no fault of their own lack the capacity to function independently is considered just ... because such people have earned it by their past efforts."
"On the other hand, ... a woman who has three or four children out of wedlock and ... has never contributed anything to society [has real need] but it is self-induced and thus abusive of the welfare system and exploitative of those whose money is taken from them to support it. Providing such a person with needed resources may be decent and compassionate, but it is not ... just." (p.29) The comparison of yearly salaries amongst certain valuable or invaluable people is also a brilliant description of how distributive justice fails to meet every need for every contributor; for example, "athletes and actors, who contribute nothing to the community except entertainment, [make] more each year then an entire four-hundred-person police force, whose contributions to the community are enormous." (p.29) As a realist living in the mess of modern society, I must ultimately agree that "Justice is made to give everyone his due; to the rich his richness, to the poor his poverty." (Anatole France)
As far as Transcendental and Evolutionary perspectives go, I tend towards evolution with musings of transcendentalism.
I'm still not sure what equity is... other than a Latin derivative of the word "just," I keep thinking "Home Equity Loan" which I definitely don't understand. Really though, is it like Justice's vitamin, taken every day with breakfast, or is more like a 5-hour energy shot and used only when needed?
I like the idea of the Court of Chancery because stone-cold and unmerciful judges were directed to "view each case as unique, to be flexible and empathetic, and to think in terms of standards or principles of fairness rather than rules of law." (p.41) This is the first time intent is mentioned in the text. (Sigh of relief. Finally!) Honestly, the Court of Chancery's potential for corruption, unique outlook on criminals and citizens, plus its old-school name brings to mind The Canterbury Tales. Score. I digress...
I appreciate the texts honesty when it describes the crime control and due process models as extremes on the same continuum and then explains how, "no modern legal system competely conforms to either of these ideal types." (p.51) Legal adjustments to these models are required because both extremes can be exaggerated, as seen in several un-just Supreme Court cases .
Well, I'm completely new to blogging, but those are some of my thoughts on Chapter 2. Hopefully I'll get better at this.
Until next time.
Good first attempt. Clean up the writing a bit. Work on using punctuation better. Make sure you put commas in the correct place. Ellipses should be used sparingly (it seemed as if you were on a roll with the use of ellipses). Finally, make sure the writing flows rather than appearing like a laundry list of what you learned. Good attempt, though.
ReplyDelete