• The notion of developing humanity rather than refining systems takes some of the focus off of legal rules.
• Placing our focus on the rationality and maturity of the truth decider does not, however, eliminate the need for rules.
• While the justification and responsibility for the judicial decision must ultimately rest with the individual, legal rules and standards can serve other functions than creating the illusion of objectivity.
• Rules codify the thinking of a community
• Rules force debate
• Rules serve some sort of normative function, both in setting positive standards for ethical or moral conduct, and making clear any community proscriptions on conduct.
• Rules assist individual decision makers

Although this change seems profound, Frank questions the validity of the distinction. Any system of legal rules must draw its input from the facts surrounding a case. The truth of these facts must necessarily be determined by the human process of investigation and secernment. Indeed, Frank claims this activity is so bound in the nature of individual that it may better be understood as a process of "truth deciding." Extending Frank's reasoning, we find that the necessity of fact as the basis for law makes decision by legal rules as contingent on human factors and circumstance as the disfavored methods of the ordeal. A system based on a interconnected system of legal rules may blind us with its refined complexity, but is only as good as the truth it is based on. In an expression used by engineers of information systems, "Garbage in, Garbage out."

Outline

The Failure of Rule Based Law to Justify Outcomes

Garbage In, Garbage Out: The Argument Against Legal Rules as a Mechanism of Justice

Frank and the Role of Truth in a Legal System

The Failure of Further Refining Rules

Setting a Course: The Difficulty of Assigning Heuristics to Legal Outcomes

The Goals of a Legal System

The Effect of Subjective Goals

Where We Stand Post-Frank

Focusing on the Individual as a Replacement for Rules

Individual Responsibility for Legal Outcomes

Developing Truth-Deciders

A Place for Legal Rules

Conclusion

Notes (scrap writings I am keeping here as I edit)

The development of modern law has generally been viewed (by whom? this is a terrible sentence!) as the development of a rational system of interconnected legal rules. In "Modern Legal Magic," Jerome Frank outlines a transition from the ritualistic _ of the ordeal, to the development of a system of law based on the precepts of logical reasoning.

Although this shift in the basis of legal judgment...

Frank's criticism of the modern reliance on systems of legal rules

Although Frank holds out some hope that justice will be done If we are unable to reach a just and consistent outcome through a system of legal rules, we are If justice and consistency cannot be effected through the use of a deterministic system of legal rules, we must

Any effort to reform the law must begin with an examination of the possible goals of a legal system. Although a detailed treatment of this topic is vastly outside the scope of this essay, I will briefly _ three goals arguably central to the success of any legal system: consistency of legal judgment, the efficient production of utility, and adherence to the moral expectations of the citizenry. While these goals are prima facia reasonable, they are bound to encounter the same difficulties of definition that plague our legal system as a whole. Consistency must be measured in terms of truth, the unknowability of which is the foundation of Frank's argument. Utility and morality are even more vague, depending on the subjective understanding of some undefined set of individuals. Although this inability to even define adequate heuristics may seem like the death knell for the reformation of law, it strengthens the conclusion that the ideal system of law cannot be the simple result of sufficiently refined legal rules. _ _ the very goals of law are dependent on the human factors that make a scientific analysis untenable. The _ of injustice arises because we are sublimating our natural _ to the _ of a system. Consistent reasoning is substituted for consistent judgment. A instinctual _ at the problem might be to further refine the system, and eliminate _ from the functioning of the . If we accept Frank's reasoning, this solution cannot possibly succeed. Law itself is a deeply human activity, and the further refinement of a mechanistic system of reasoning can only mask the __. If a scientific system of legal rules is unable to eliminate the ^^human factors^^, it would follow that the development of a just legal system must focus on the moral and intellectual development.

Paper Title

-- By TheodoreSmith - 09 Feb 2008

Topic Sentence

Topic: If we accept the eventual conclusion of Frank's reasoning, that the human role as truth decider ultimately forecloses the possibility of a consistent system of "legal science", our development of a just and effective legal system must necessarily focus on developing the reasoning and moral courage of the individual.

Ramblings

The development of modern law has generally been viewed (by whom? this is a terrible sentence!) as the development of a rational system of interconnected legal rules. In "Modern Legal Magic," Jerome Frank outlines a transition from the ritualistic _ of the ordeal, to the development of a system of law based on the precepts of logical reasoning.

Although this shift in the basis of legal judgment...

Frank's criticism of the modern reliance on systems of legal rules

Although Frank holds out some hope that justice will be done If we are unable to reach a just and consistent outcome through a system of legal rules, we are If justice and consistency cannot be effected through the use of a deterministic system of legal rules, we must

Any effort to reform the law must begin with an examination of the possible goals of a legal system. Although a detailed treatment of this topic is vastly outside the scope of this essay, I will briefly _ three goals arguably central to the success of any legal system: consistency of legal judgment, the efficient production of utility, and adherence to the moral expectations of the citizenry. While these goals are prima facia reasonable, they are bound to encounter the same difficulties of definition that plague our legal system as a whole. Consistency must be measured in terms of truth, the unknowability of which is the foundation of Frank's argument. Utility and morality are even more vague, depending on the subjective understanding of some undefined set of individuals. Although this inability to even define adequate heuristics may seem like the death knell for the reformation of law, it strengthens the conclusion that the ideal system of law cannot be the simple result of sufficiently refined legal rules. _ _ the very goals of law are dependent on the human factors that make a scientific analysis untenable. The _ of injustice arises because we are sublimating our natural _ to the _ of a system. Consistent reasoning is substituted for consistent judgment. A instinctual _ at the problem might be to further refine the system, and eliminate _ from the functioning of the . If we accept Frank's reasoning, this solution cannot possibly succeed. Law itself is a deeply human activity, and the further refinement of a mechanistic system of reasoning can only mask the __. If a scientific system of legal rules is unable to eliminate the ^^human factors^^, it would follow that the development of a just legal system must focus on the moral and intellectual development.

# * Set ALLOWTOPICVIEW = TWikiAdminGroup, TheodoreSmith

Note: TWiki has strict formatting rules. Make sure you preserve the three spaces, asterisk, and extra space at the beginning of that line. If you wish to give access to any other users simply add them to the comma separated list