| | |
|
JudgeDayAndRetributiveJustice 4 - 05 Apr 2012 - Main.WilliamDavidWilliams
|
| | I was surprised that Eben characterized Judge Day as someone with absolute power and control. I can see how her awareness that she's going to be a cripple one day causes her to split because she is not in control of herself/her body, but I don't think that she has any delusions about her lack of power outside of herself either.
Judge Day seems to be fixated on the idea of power and is particularly aware of the extent of her own power. "The finest lawyer [she's] ever known" told her that "Real power doesn't exist in the courts. He was so right. You have discretion in this job, but you'd be surprised how little. It's taken me an embarrassingly long time to realize that there's a big difference between having a bit of discretion and having real power. It is a very important distinction. A very, very, very important distinction." (90) | | | I agree with you that Judge Day may be better off psychologically if she stopped pretending (to herself) to be a Formalist judge and openly followed her sense of intuitive justice. I'm suddenly reminded of a discussion we had in Legal Methods about how Formalism (during the Age of Faith) partially arose out of judges' anxiety over "bringing law to slavery". Judges had four choices when it came to upholding the Fugitive Slave Act: 1) resign, 2) refuse to follow the law, 3) find a way out through technicalities, or 4) follow the law mindlessly "with death in your heart." I think that Judge Day thinks that she is in the fourth category - don't ask why, just follow the law . But you're right that in reality, she tries to find ways to bend the sentencing rules to comport with what she thinks is just. She doesn't actually think that the law we have is what we deserve - the "you get what you deserve" justice on the street doesn't fit with the justice in the courtroom, and that creates cognitive dissonance for a self-boxed Formalist judge.
-- MichelleLuo - 05 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | Thank you for starting this post. You actually hit the nail on the head with the Fugitive Slave Act. That actually is connecting more of what we have learned in the course thus far. Judge Lemuel Shaw, who upheld the Fugitive Slave Act because it was the law, when claiming that he was personally opposed to slavery, is another example of splitting. That's why it was brought up earlier in Lawyerland during the conversation between Jansen, Urquart, and Voorhees in Something Split. Joseph is giving up examples of splitting without always telling us. I think he wants his readers to understand this and engage in self-examination.
Despite what people tell us we have to do or what type of lawyer we have to be, we have to stay true to ourselves and use our law degree to make a difference. Just because it's "the law" or "the system" doesn't mean we can't change it. Avoiding this splitting will move us closer to achieving the justice that the world needs. This conversation is one step in that process. |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |