Willful Ignorance and the Legal Community

-- By AlexHu - 24 Feb 2009

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

• Your writing is completely competent and under control, but it's not clear what all the rhetoric is serving. This reads to me like Law Day logic-chopping rather than a real idea in the process of exposition. There seem to be two propositions: (1) Laymen are ignorant of the law and therefore are more optimistic than they should be about both its efficiency and its justice; and (2) Lawyers are as well, but theirs is not forgivable ignorance because they are the people on whom knowledge imposes responsibility. I'm not sure whether (1) is true, and you provide no supporting evidence. Apparently it doesn't matter whether (2) is descriptively true, because the real point is

  normative

  Lawyers should care about the state of the law, and should hold themselves responsible for its condition. This is simply bar association rhetoric, as I say, unless accompanied by some specific call to action, which is missing here.

• In my view, the problem lies at the level of generality at which you approached your topic. More specificity would have enabled you to present an idea about something in particular, rather than a speculation without referent.