SoYeonKimFirstPaper 3 - 14 Apr 2012 - Main.EbenMoglen
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| | Daedalus’ edifice imprisoning the Minotaur was at least a unicursal labyrinth with a single non-branching pathway leading to the center. Theseus only needed a ball of string to find his way back out. The poor are not so fortunate. For them, the law is a multicursal maze designed to be as difficult to navigate as possible. | |
< < | Law as a Labyrinth
What makes law a labyrinth? It is near impossible for laymen to access and make sense of vast bodies of statutes, ordinances, and regulations without legal assistance. The adverse social impact of the difficulty of understanding the law is aggravated by the rule of ignorantia juris non excusat. This legal principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse liability for violating it may have made some sense in the past when almost all laws proscribed conduct malum in se. However, an overwhelming array of laws now proscribes conduct malum prohibitum and outlaws morally neutral acts. Moral compass no longer protects the uneducated poor. Defenders of this archaic doctrine would say that it is a rule of fairness. It prevents people from avoiding the consequences of their crimes by claiming ignorance. To me, it seems more like a rule of economy in which the system punishes those who commit crimes in a structure where precise knowledge of the law is impossible and presumes fault because the alternative would require the court to make time consuming and difficult determinations as to the merits of people’s defenses. The perpetuation of this rule is condoning violation of fundamental principles of right to fair trial for sake of modest economy or a distorted sense of fairness. | > > | Indeed. That's because
the labyrinth on Crete was supposed to admit a hero who could return
again: it was built to fail. The prison that encloses the poor is
built to succeed forever.
Law as a Labyrinth What makes law a labyrinth? It is near
impossible for laymen to access and make sense of vast bodies of
statutes, ordinances, and regulations without legal assistance. The
adverse social impact of the difficulty of understanding the law is
aggravated by the rule of ignorantia juris non excusat. This legal
principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse liability for
violating it may have made some sense in the past when almost all laws
proscribed conduct <span style="background-color: #cc6688; color:
yellow; padding-left: 3px; padding-right: 3px">[was] _malum in
se_.
When was there a time
that there was no tax law, or that ignorance of tax law consisted
relief from its imposition? You're not offering legal history,
you're making it up.
However, an overwhelming array of laws now proscribes conduct
malum prohibitum and outlaws morally neutral acts. Moral compass no
longer protects the uneducated poor. Defenders of this archaic
doctrine would say that it is a rule of fairness. It prevents people
from avoiding the consequences of their crimes by claiming
ignorance. To me, it seems more like a rule of economy in which the
system punishes those who commit crimes in a structure where precise
knowledge of the law is impossible and presumes fault because the
alternative would require the court to make time consuming and
difficult determinations as to the merits of people’s
defenses. The perpetuation of this rule is condoning violation of
fundamental principles of right to fair trial for sake of modest
economy or a distorted sense of fairness. | | Whatever the rationale behind this rule, it has disproportionately targeted the poor. The rich are less affected by the difficulty of knowing the law because they are financially capable of hiring lawyers to tell them what is legal and illegal ex ante, and at least diligently represent them ex post. For the uneducated, knowing the law requires more than going to the local law library and reading statutes. Statutes are full of terms of art like “consideration,” “reasonable,” and “firearm,” that mislead readers with their counterintuitive legal definitions. Instead of expecting the uneducated poor to know what the system has made virtually impossible for them to know, by couching the law in layman’s terms, making statutes more accessible, investing in legal education for the masses, and actively publicizing laws, excessive use of this excuse could be kept to a minimum. | |
> > | This line of argument,
however accurate, is important in proportion to the extent that the
bars in the cell doors of the poor are made of laws they rush against
in ignorance. You haven't explained why this is most, or even much,
of the legal unfairness experienced by the poor. Other aspects of
the legal system come much more to mind, at least for me, whether I
am thinking about J.M. Kelly's description of Roman civil procedure,
or Bleak House, or Conley & O'Barr on American small claims court process. | | Madison recognized in Federalist No. 62 that “ [laws] will be of little avail to the people, . . . if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.” But his insight did not change the system. Instead what we have are Caligula’s laws written in the columns of high buildings, indecipherable and impossible to reach. | |
< < | Lawyers as Ariadne’s String
So what is the legal profession’s role in this quandary? We want lawyers to be Ariadne’s string guiding the indigent and uneducated through the legal maze (although the analogy is somewhat strained, as Ariadne’s string was meant to help Theseus escape the labyrinth, not to navigate it.). The reality is not very encouraging. It seems that the legal profession is complacent because it feeds on this ignorance of the masses. Ignorance of the law creates demand and drives up the price of legal services, although the effect that legal illiteracy of the indigent has on the price of legal services is minimal. The predicament is exacerbated by the massive shortage of lawyers willing to represent the poor. For those who are too poor to afford a private attorney, the options boil down to publicly funded public defenders, public interest groups, and private lawyers fulfilling mandatory pro bono requirements. All three mechanisms are underfunded and understaffed, and according to Building a Better Legal Profession, although large law firms have the most resources at hand to meet the demand for pro bono legal work, escalating requirements for billable hours lead to a declining commitment to pro bono work and “a shockingly low proportion of lawyers at large firms meet even the minimal 50 hour recommendation.” In this respect, Ariadne’s string is far too short and thin to be useful. | > > | Well, allowing for the
fact that Caligula's laws hardly emerged in response to a comment by
James Madison. What did emerge were the efforts of the codification
movement in the US in the nineteenth century , including the writings
of Theodore Sedgwick and Robert Rantoul, with which you might want to
become familiar, and the codes of David Dudley Field, with which New
York law students used to have some experience, and which none of
your teachers could distinguish from the Code of Hammurabi at
twenty-five paces. | | | |
< < | The Minotaur
A consequence of legal illiteracy is the systematic bias in the legal system against the indigent manifested through higher rates of arrest, charges, convictions, long prison sentences and denial of parol. Unlike the myth, here the Minotaur is the product of the labyrinth. While the potential causes for this bias and the corresponding solutions are too numerous to discuss, for the purposes of this essay, I would argue that instead of perpetuating a default rule based on a depressing view of humanity in which people will lie and fabricate excuses to avoid liability, the profession should have a little more faith in the legal system’s ability to determine meaningful factors through discovery and trial. Investment in basic legal education and increasing the accessibility of laws will help prevent the abuse of the ignorance excuse. While there are always settled legal rules, a trial is every person’s forum to assert that his case is unique. In a reformed system, people will not be held responsible despite the impossibility of knowing the law, but rather have a chance to prove that they in fact should be excused. | > > | Lawyers as Ariadne’s String
So what is the legal profession’s role in this quandary? We want lawyers to be Ariadne’s string guiding the indigent and uneducated through the legal maze (although the analogy is somewhat strained, as Ariadne’s string was meant to help Theseus escape the labyrinth, not to navigate it.). | | | |
> > | And you couldn't
possibly want to help the poor escape, by slaying the Minotaur (that
would be terrorism) and remaking the legal landscape (that would be
socialism). Right?
The reality is not very encouraging. It seems that the legal profession is complacent because it feeds on this ignorance of the masses. Ignorance of the law creates demand and drives up the price of legal services, although the effect that legal illiteracy of the indigent has on the price of legal services is minimal. The predicament is exacerbated by the massive shortage of lawyers willing to represent the poor. For those who are too poor to afford a private attorney, the options boil down to publicly funded public defenders, public interest groups, and private lawyers fulfilling mandatory pro bono requirements. All three mechanisms are underfunded and understaffed, and according to Building a Better Legal Profession, although large law firms have the most resources at hand to meet the demand for pro bono legal work, escalating requirements for billable hours lead to a declining commitment to pro bono work and “a shockingly low proportion of lawyers at large firms meet even the minimal 50 hour recommendation.” In this respect, Ariadne’s string is far too short and thin to be useful.
See
SkylarPolanskyFirstPaper for a closer inquiry on these last points.
But you're exaggerating the resources of the poor. Public defenders
only represent poor people when they are charged with crimes, which
is a small part of labyrinth imprisoning the poor. Most legal
services organizations acting in the public interest are
issues-focused organizations like mine, forming relations with
clients in specific social contexts in order to further larger social
aims. The provision of basic civil legal assistance to the poor,
which was envisioned as an important part of Lyndon Johnson's
anti-poverty initiative, the Great Society, was rapidly destroyed by
the succeeding Republican government under Richard Nixon, and the
Legal Services Corporation rapidly faded into the network of
"underfunded and understaffed" specialist organizations you mention
but don't discuss. Large law firm pro bono practices are bound to
prevent conflicts of interest with their firm's clients, and will
never therefore engage in widespread efforts on behalf of poor
clients against banks, real estate developers, industrial polluters,
etc. | | | |
< < |
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines: | > > | | | | |
< < | | > > | The Minotaur
A consequence of legal illiteracy is the systematic bias in the legal system against the indigent manifested through higher rates of arrest, charges, convictions, long prison sentences and denial of parol. | | | |
< < | Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. | > > | Here, too, an emphasis
on criminal process leads to an underestimate of the real barriers
enclosing the poor.
Unlike the myth, here the Minotaur is the product of the labyrinth. While the potential causes for this bias and the corresponding solutions are too numerous to discuss, for the purposes of this essay, I would argue that instead of perpetuating a default rule based on a depressing view of humanity in which people will lie and fabricate excuses to avoid liability, the profession should have a little more faith in the legal system’s ability to determine meaningful factors through discovery and trial. Investment in basic legal education and increasing the accessibility of laws will help prevent the abuse of the ignorance excuse. While there are always settled legal rules, a trial is every person’s forum to assert that his case is unique. In a reformed system, people will not be held responsible despite the impossibility of knowing the law, but rather have a chance to prove that they in fact should be excused.
I've indicated in my
comments above the places where I think some further effort would
result in improvement of the draft, which overall is both clearly
argued and sophisticatedly expressed. |
|
SoYeonKimFirstPaper 2 - 16 Feb 2012 - Main.SoYeonKim
|
|
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
| |
< < | | | | |
< < | It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted. | | | |
< < | Paper Title | > > | Law as a Labyrinth for the Indigent | | -- By SoYeonKim - 14 Feb 2012 | |
> > | Daedalus’ edifice imprisoning the Minotaur was at least a unicursal labyrinth with a single non-branching pathway leading to the center. Theseus only needed a ball of string to find his way back out. The poor are not so fortunate. For them, the law is a multicursal maze designed to be as difficult to navigate as possible. | | | |
< < | Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2 | > > | Law as a Labyrinth
What makes law a labyrinth? It is near impossible for laymen to access and make sense of vast bodies of statutes, ordinances, and regulations without legal assistance. The adverse social impact of the difficulty of understanding the law is aggravated by the rule of ignorantia juris non excusat. This legal principle that ignorance of the law does not excuse liability for violating it may have made some sense in the past when almost all laws proscribed conduct malum in se. However, an overwhelming array of laws now proscribes conduct malum prohibitum and outlaws morally neutral acts. Moral compass no longer protects the uneducated poor. Defenders of this archaic doctrine would say that it is a rule of fairness. It prevents people from avoiding the consequences of their crimes by claiming ignorance. To me, it seems more like a rule of economy in which the system punishes those who commit crimes in a structure where precise knowledge of the law is impossible and presumes fault because the alternative would require the court to make time consuming and difficult determinations as to the merits of people’s defenses. The perpetuation of this rule is condoning violation of fundamental principles of right to fair trial for sake of modest economy or a distorted sense of fairness. | | | |
> > | Whatever the rationale behind this rule, it has disproportionately targeted the poor. The rich are less affected by the difficulty of knowing the law because they are financially capable of hiring lawyers to tell them what is legal and illegal ex ante, and at least diligently represent them ex post. For the uneducated, knowing the law requires more than going to the local law library and reading statutes. Statutes are full of terms of art like “consideration,” “reasonable,” and “firearm,” that mislead readers with their counterintuitive legal definitions. Instead of expecting the uneducated poor to know what the system has made virtually impossible for them to know, by couching the law in layman’s terms, making statutes more accessible, investing in legal education for the masses, and actively publicizing laws, excessive use of this excuse could be kept to a minimum. | | | |
< < | Section II | > > | Madison recognized in Federalist No. 62 that “ [laws] will be of little avail to the people, . . . if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood; if they be repealed or revised before they are promulgated, or undergo such incessant changes that no man, who knows what the law is to-day, can guess what it will be to-morrow.” But his insight did not change the system. Instead what we have are Caligula’s laws written in the columns of high buildings, indecipherable and impossible to reach. | | | |
< < | Subsection A | > > | Lawyers as Ariadne’s String
So what is the legal profession’s role in this quandary? We want lawyers to be Ariadne’s string guiding the indigent and uneducated through the legal maze (although the analogy is somewhat strained, as Ariadne’s string was meant to help Theseus escape the labyrinth, not to navigate it.). The reality is not very encouraging. It seems that the legal profession is complacent because it feeds on this ignorance of the masses. Ignorance of the law creates demand and drives up the price of legal services, although the effect that legal illiteracy of the indigent has on the price of legal services is minimal. The predicament is exacerbated by the massive shortage of lawyers willing to represent the poor. For those who are too poor to afford a private attorney, the options boil down to publicly funded public defenders, public interest groups, and private lawyers fulfilling mandatory pro bono requirements. All three mechanisms are underfunded and understaffed, and according to Building a Better Legal Profession, although large law firms have the most resources at hand to meet the demand for pro bono legal work, escalating requirements for billable hours lead to a declining commitment to pro bono work and “a shockingly low proportion of lawyers at large firms meet even the minimal 50 hour recommendation.” In this respect, Ariadne’s string is far too short and thin to be useful. | | | |
< < | Subsection B | > > | The Minotaur
A consequence of legal illiteracy is the systematic bias in the legal system against the indigent manifested through higher rates of arrest, charges, convictions, long prison sentences and denial of parol. Unlike the myth, here the Minotaur is the product of the labyrinth. While the potential causes for this bias and the corresponding solutions are too numerous to discuss, for the purposes of this essay, I would argue that instead of perpetuating a default rule based on a depressing view of humanity in which people will lie and fabricate excuses to avoid liability, the profession should have a little more faith in the legal system’s ability to determine meaningful factors through discovery and trial. Investment in basic legal education and increasing the accessibility of laws will help prevent the abuse of the ignorance excuse. While there are always settled legal rules, a trial is every person’s forum to assert that his case is unique. In a reformed system, people will not be held responsible despite the impossibility of knowing the law, but rather have a chance to prove that they in fact should be excused. | |
|
|
SoYeonKimFirstPaper 1 - 14 Feb 2012 - Main.SoYeonKim
|
|
> > |
META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstPaper" |
It is strongly recommended that you include your outline in the body of your essay by using the outline as section titles. The headings below are there to remind you how section and subsection titles are formatted.
Paper Title
-- By SoYeonKim - 14 Feb 2012
Section I
Subsection A
Subsub 1
Subsection B
Subsub 1
Subsub 2
Section II
Subsection A
Subsection B
You are entitled to restrict access to your paper if you want to. But we all derive immense benefit from reading one another's work, and I hope you won't feel the need unless the subject matter is personal and its disclosure would be harmful or undesirable.
To restrict access to your paper simply delete the "#" character on the next two lines:
Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules for preference declarations. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of these lines. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated ALLOWTOPICVIEW list. |
|
|
|
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.
|
|