| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
|---|
| |
>
> | | | | | |
>
> | When Ignorance Is Blameworthy | | | | |
<
< | Willful Ignorance and the Legal Community | >
> | -- By AlexHu - 14 Apr 2009 | | | | |
<
< | -- By AlexHu - 24 Feb 2009 | >
> | This paper was revised as part of the second-paper assignment | | | | |
>
> | Why is the layman ignorant of the law? | | | | |
<
< | Ignorance is bliss, because the truth is often bleak, if not terrifying. Unfortunately, this is especially true with regards to the law. People are willfully ignorant of what the law does, because what it actually does can be and is often frightening. The law can be abused to wreak havoc upon unfortunate have-nots (those who have lost the lottery), twisted to execute personal vendettas or prejudices, and cleverly manipulated by an elite few to destroy the life of practically any individual. In the face of this, people purposely hide from reality, preferring instead to believe that the law is a scientific process of arriving at the truth. | >
> | The layman is often ignorant of both the state of the law and how it functions in reality. Two major factors give rise to this ignorance: fear and apathy. | | | | |
<
< | The practice of willful ignorance is dangerous for anyone, even the law-abiding layman. Without knowledge of what the law actually does, it is impossible for him to make an informed judgment about how to vote on a proposed statute, or to interpret what the politician means when campaigning on a platform of being “tough on crime.” For example, a layman may vote for a statute that purports to be tough on crime, when it simply results in the costly stocking of high-security prisons with low-level drug dealers that pose little actual threat to him or his community. Unfortunately, it is ultimately the laymen that enact statutes and elect politicians through their uninformed votes. Therefore, a layman’s willful ignorance of what the law does is dangerous, because he may thereby inflict harm upon himself and his society in general. | >
> | The layman’s fear of the law stems from his recognition of its enormous coercive power. The law can be abused to wreak havoc upon unfortunate have-nots (those who have lost the lottery), twisted to execute personal vendettas or prejudices, and cleverly manipulated by an elite few to destroy the life of practically any individual. Faced with these stark realities, the layman, like the primitive man who is terrified, trapped, or baffled, turns to magic as a way of coping. Thus, he chooses to believe that there is some “function” upon which the law utilizes to scientifically arrive at the “truth.” This belief serves as the tranquilizer that keeps the layman in an ignorant but relatively blissful state. | | | | |
<
< | However, even though willful ignorance of what the law does is dangerous, for the layman, it is hardly more blameworthy than not figuring out how all the food gets into New York City and all the garbage gets out of it. Firstly, like metaphysical factors that govern our lives, the law only indirectly affects him until it fails him. Secondly, he lacks the means to truly understand the system, much less change it (other than by voting for laws which appear to him “just” on the surface). Thirdly, it would almost be unfair to expect a layman to figure out how the law works when he has another craft to perfect and a living to make. To him, worrying about the law is just as futile as worrying about the possibility of suffering a random heart attack. Indeed, the only way he can live every day without also worrying about the multitude of nebulous disasters like disease, war, and terrorist attacks, is to also live in blissful ignorance of what the law does. It is simply enough to expect a layman to try, to the best of his abilities, to adhere to the law. | >
> | The layman’s apathy stems from the reality that governs his existence. Firstly, a detailed understanding of the law is impractical for the layman. The law is highly intricate and arcane, often difficult to understand even by the lawyer, much less the layman who has to perfect another craft to make his living. Secondly, as Professor Murphy noted in his paper, The Lawyer and the Layman: Two Perspectives on the Rule of Law, “most citizens have little conscious contact with the law.” This alienation makes the law somebody else’s problem in the eyes of the layman. Together, these factors create a formidable barrier between the layman and the law, resulting in the apathy that leads to ignorance. | | | | |
<
< | Moreover, to the layman, the benefits of willful ignorance far outweigh that of subjecting himself to the knowledge that some force which he knows little about and has little control over governs almost every aspect of his life and can stamp it out at will. In believing that the law delivers justice fairly and consistently, he is able to live in happy oblivion. He is able to sleep peacefully at night thinking justice is being dealt, and that he will be protected, by the law. He might read in the news that a certain petty criminal got slapped with such and such a penalty, and think to himself, “wow, that is unfair!”, but he will quickly forget because it didn’t happen to him, and it wouldn’t happen to him. Thus, for the layman, willful ignorance of what the law does is dangerous, but comforting and not unexpected or truly blameworthy. | >
> | The layman’s ignorance is dangerous, but not blameworthy | | | | |
<
< | On the other hand, for the lawyer, willful ignorance of what the law does is both dangerous and morally reprehensible. It is especially dangerous for the lawyer to be willfully ignorant of what the law does because he cannot effective if he strives to hide himself from the true nature of what he claims to practice. If he chooses to pretend that the law is formulaic justice, he will further reinforce the layman’s ignorance and ultimately end up disillusioning both himself and his client. And he will be an ineffective advocate. He will be unable to realize the patience and various tactics and maneuvers necessary to effectively further justice. Simply put, the lawyer must acknowledge and understand the harsh reality of the law; otherwise, he will perpetually remain the novice lawyer in Robinson’s Metamorphosis. | >
> | As it is ultimately the layman who enacts statutes and elects politicians through his vote, his ignorance of what the law actually does is dangerous, because his uninformed decisions may inadvertently inflict harm upon himself and his society in general. However, for the layman, ignorance of the law is hardly more blameworthy than not thinking about how all the food gets into New York City and all the garbage gets out of it. The layman is confronted with enormous barriers in simply understanding the system; it would be absurd to expect him to somehow gain the mastery necessary to contribute knowledgeably and helpfully to it. | | | | |
<
< | But not only is it dangerous for the lawyer to hide himself from what the law does, it is morally reprehensible. True, accepting the nature of the law is burdensome; the law is a cruel mistress, often twisted, harsh, and unjust. But to deny this burden in favor of comfortable ignorance is reprehensible, because in choosing to become a lawyer, a person has voluntarily pledged to utilize the law to further justice. He cannot pretend that he has another craft to learn or that the law doesn’t directly affect him. A lawyer’s willful ignorance of what the law does is like the plumber who strictly follows the manual even though he knows that it is incomplete and gives only dangerously ineffective instruction. | >
> | However, even a lawyer may be ignorant of the law | | | | |
<
< | Most importantly, because a lawyer is the only person in society who has the requisite understanding, knowledge, and power to change the law, he has the affirmative duty to do so when it is unjust, broken, or harmful to society. Unlike a plumber or an auto-mechanic, a lawyer does not work with static rules; rather, he constantly molds, changes, and rewrites the rulebook as he works his craft. It is therefore his duty, not only to his career, but to society in general, to courageously face the harsh realities of the law, so that as its guardian, he is able to utilize it to promulgate justice. | >
> | A lawyer, too, may be ignorant of the law; similar to the layman, his ignorance also stems from fear and apathy.
A lawyer is not immune to a fear of the coercive power of the law. He too, would like to believe that the law utilizes some sort of scientific function to arrive at the truth. This belief is so powerfully comforting that even a lawyer, who should know the true nature of the law, is tempted by its wiles.
A lawyer is likewise not immune to the apathy stemming from the reality that governs his existence. A lawyer has to make a living and sustain the lifestyle that he desires; while he is in constant contact with the law, he only needs to contact that law upon which he can make a living. Like Urquart implies, he needs only to find a pool of money and attach himself to it.
Unfortunately, these factors often result in a lawyer who is so distant from the law that he is effectively as ignorant as the layman.
Unlike the layman, a lawyer’s ignorance is morally blameworthy
A lawyer’s ignorance of the law is unjustifiable.
Indeed, accepting the nature of the law is frightening; the law is a cruel mistress, often twisted, harsh, and unjust. But for a lawyer to deny this burden in favor of comfortable ignorance is reprehensible; in choosing to become a lawyer, he has voluntarily dedicated himself to be an effective practitioner of the law. However, a lawyer cannot be effective if he shields himself from the true nature of what he claims to practice. Simply put, if the lawyer refuses to acknowledge the harsh reality of the law, he will perpetually remain the novice lawyer in Robinson’s Metamorphosis and do his field a grave disservice.
Likewise, a lawyer’s apathy for the law is inexcusable. The ignorant layman has entrusted in the lawyer the ultimate responsibility of working with, crafting, and understanding the law, and the lawyer has voluntarily accepted this responsibility. The lawyer is the only person in society who has the requisite understanding, knowledge, and power to change the law. He cannot pretend that he has another craft to learn or that the law doesn’t directly affect him. He cannot say that the law is somebody else’s problem. Yet, as we see in Jansen, Urquart, Voorhees, and Wylie, he often pawns his license in exchange for a purportedly stable and luxurious lifestyle.
Thus, whether arising out of apathy, fear, or a combination of the two, a lawyer’s ignorance stems from selfish motives and abuses the honorable practice of law, making his ignorance blameworthy.
A lawyer has the duty to know
A lawyer, entrusted with the heavy burden as caretaker of the law, has the duty, not only to his career and to himself, but to society in general, to know the law by facing its challenges earnestly and courageously. The best way for a lawyer to fulfill this duty is to be actively involved in the promulgation of justice: fixing the law when it is unjust, broken, or harmful to society. Yet, lawyers are mere mortals, and it would be uncharitable to completely fault the many who put their selfish objectives before their obligations to society.
So, how can we help a lawyer fulfill this duty?
One possible method of helping a lawyer fulfill his responsibility to society is to make the bar license contingent on a mandatory number of pro bono hours. This system could require that a certain percent (e.g., 5%) of the attorney’s billable hours per year, up to a hard cap maximum (e.g., 100 hours), be dedicated to pro bono work. After all, it seems only fair that society’s permission to practice law is conditioned on a lawyer’s continued willingness to uphold the tenets of his field. | | |
- Your writing is completely competent and under control, but it's not clear what all the rhetoric is serving. This reads to
|
|