Censorship, then and now

Reading through the slave codes made me realize how repressive life must have been, not only for slaves, but even for those that wanted to free slaves. If you convinced a slave to run away, YOU would be responsible for paying the owner the price of the slave. If you tried to smuggle slaves out of the state, YOU could be arrested.

The even more troubling part about this is how this isn't new to our world, nor is it only in our past. People living in North Korea and China face similar censorship and punishment if they raise their ideas against the norm. The most troubling is how close to home this is: the hunt for communists during the Nixon years, or even the hunt for terrorists during the Bush administration under the "Patriot" act.

We live in a world where not only are laws means of protecting people from hurting or taking advantage of other people, they are also have severe cultural impacts. People become afraid to have varying opinions if they know it'll get them arrested. People won't go out to protest for fear of being fined heavily and not being able to provide for themselves and our families. People will, as such, accept whatever is told to them so that they can feel secure in what they have "been given". This has happened throughout history in so many forms, and is still going on today. We, as members of this (and, in many respects, more than one) country, need to remember this and work against the pressure of censorship, help people to not be unfairly treated under the "righteous ruling of the law", and be able to live in the diverse community that we claim to be.

Thoughts on MLK

     In the land of technology, what better way to begin my first blog post in an unrelated course as I wait for class to begin. Surprisingly, I've read a significant amount of the assigned readings and feel as though I'm ready to give some input. Holmes, Hart, and Allen were all intriguing with their works but, the one that resonates the most with me is that of Dr. King with his letter from the Birmingham jail.
     The term freedom is such a powerful word. Given where it began from to where it stands today. Dr. King made it his duty to take on the inequalities of the word, to make the future of tomorrow a much better place. The campaign of nonviolence in which Dr. King lead was essential and paved the way for a much more sustainable life for many of us. The nonviolent campaign consisted of four important steps. Those steps are: "1. Collection of the facts to determine whether injustices are alive, 2. Negotiation, 3. Self-purification, and 4. Direct action". All of these steps are important when it comes to the old saying of "practicing what you preach". Allowing wrongful crimes to take place no matter how big or small they are creates injustice of matters on a more larger account. In the words of Dr. King, "injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere".

-Nik

The Role of Morality in Law

Here's a question to my teammates:

How much should the law reflect moral beliefs? Do you believe that the law is made to craft people into good and proper human beings by showing them what is right and wrong to do, or do you believe that moral beliefs are to subjective to be forcefully imposed on the people of a country?

Two extreme ends of the scale to think about would be impedance or absence of paternalistic laws. These include laws typically define as "laws that protect people from themselves". For those who enforce a morality based legal system, proper laws include those that ban drug use, enforce seat belt/helmet use, and require taxation for government services. Those against these types of laws believe that they impede on our freedoms and rights as citizens.

Holmes discusses this point in "The Path Of The Law". Here is a short paragraph where Holmes discusses the issue directly:

"The first thing for a business-like understanding of the matter is to understand its limits, and therefore I think it desirable at once to point out and dispel a confusion between morality and law, which sometimes rises to the height of conscious theory, and more often and indeed constantly is making trouble in detail without reaching the point of consciousness. You can see very plainly that a bad man has as much reason as a good one for wishing to avoid an encounter with the public force, and therefore you can see the practical importance of the distinction between morality and law. A man who cares nothing for an ethical rule which is believed and practised by his neighbors is likely nevertheless to care a good deal to avoid being made to pay money, and will want to keep out of jail if he can."

It is also worth mentioning that Holmes believes that the court's job is not to discipline "bad men", but to punish those who break promises and compensate those who are victimized due to the breaking of those promises. Holmes also discusses how it is the lawyers job to interpret the law in a way favorable to his client and predict how the court will rule, aiming to sway the ruling into his side's favor. 

What do you all think? Should laws protect us from ourselves and teach us how to be righteous human beings, or should it only limit the necessary crimes and leave us to craft our own moral compass?

Thoughts on Holmes

“The Path of the Law” had some very interesting points concerning the distinction between the law and morality, though two stand out in my mind: The “bad” man and the human side of the law. The bad man scenario starts on page 3 (pg 992 of the document) and goes into how a morally corrupt man has every reason to want to understand the law and obey it as a morally righteous one. This plays well into the idea that a person can use the law to their advantage, as well as maintain malicious habits while still raising no qualms with the legal system. The second point begins on Page 5 (994 of the text), but also echoes throughout the rest of the paper. This point emphasizes how lawyers are not enforcers of the law, but rather guided interpreters and “prophets” of the law. It is the lawyer’s job to predict how the court will react to and rule a certain case, as well as how to influence those reactions and rulings. This point plays off of the idea that these laws are not mechanical or objective, but rather malleable depending on the people involved. Psychological studies have shown how certain people receive “unfair” treatment because of their race, gender, income, education, lingual abilities, or religion. It is also true that juries and judges can be influenced by the emotional testimonies that are presented in court. All in all, the separation of morality and law, as well as remembering the human interpretation that goes into ruling legal matters, are important factors to keep in mind when discussing the philosophy of law.

Welcome to Team 4's Philosophy of Law Blog

Welcome to the discussion blog for Team 4. This blog will discuss the many topics discussed in William Paterson University's Philosophy of Law class. The instructor for this class is Prof. Stephan Thompson. Our class will be reviewing the works of varying legal philosophers throughout history, including Ronald Dworkin, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., Martha Nussbaum, and many others. Join us as we discuss topics such as the role of morality in the legal system, slave laws throughout history, and a plethora of other areas in the world of legal philosophy.