The legal system suffers from more than vagueness and ambiguity. Legalese can be hard for non-attorneys to understand. The system of laws appears to be internally inconsistent, so that even an accomplished logician with an unlimited amount of time couldn't predict what all the laws would require or prohibit. There are so many laws on the books that no one could become familiar with them all within the course of a lifetime. According to Harvey Silverglate in his book “Three Felonies a Day,” most Americans unwittingly commit several federal crimes every day. Yet a legal principle states that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That suggests that to avoid breaking any laws, one ought to do what one cannot do, in violation of the moral principle that ought implies can.
One of my favorite examples is possessing an eagle feather. I had thought it was one of those never-enforced laws, but it has been enforced several times. I believe some knew it was illegal to have it, but others didn't even know it was an eagle feather. I doubt I'd recognize an eagle feather if I found one on the ground, yet I could be prosecuted and sent to prison. Then there's the question of how much Indian blood you need to be immune to prosecution.
I read the Three Felonies a Day book, but don't remember it well now. I do remember being annoyed that so many of his examples involved the FBI's ancient note-taking procedures used to entrap people into snitching on someone higher up the food chain, but I don't doubt that I have committed hundreds or thousands of felonies in my life. Some of his examples, probably all of them, were infuriating at showing such an out-of-control system.
All the vagaries of laws was one of the primary drivers in developing my charter. I had started trying to fix those confusing aspects, and all I really did was make it more and more complicated. What I ended up with, the charter, was almost entirely to give me a baseline of an ideal "perfect" judicial system to understand goofy legal cases I encountered. It has helped with the system we have and I learned a lot more than I expected, but some things still baffle me. Why both injunctions and restraining orders? Legal explanations of the difference seem more like after-the-fact rationalizations than justifications which led naturally to the two distinct court orders.
The legal system suffers from more than vagueness and ambiguity. Legalese can be hard for non-attorneys to understand. The system of laws appears to be internally inconsistent, so that even an accomplished logician with an unlimited amount of time couldn't predict what all the laws would require or prohibit. There are so many laws on the books that no one could become familiar with them all within the course of a lifetime. According to Harvey Silverglate in his book “Three Felonies a Day,” most Americans unwittingly commit several federal crimes every day. Yet a legal principle states that ignorance of the law is no excuse. That suggests that to avoid breaking any laws, one ought to do what one cannot do, in violation of the moral principle that ought implies can.
One of my favorite examples is possessing an eagle feather. I had thought it was one of those never-enforced laws, but it has been enforced several times. I believe some knew it was illegal to have it, but others didn't even know it was an eagle feather. I doubt I'd recognize an eagle feather if I found one on the ground, yet I could be prosecuted and sent to prison. Then there's the question of how much Indian blood you need to be immune to prosecution.
I read the Three Felonies a Day book, but don't remember it well now. I do remember being annoyed that so many of his examples involved the FBI's ancient note-taking procedures used to entrap people into snitching on someone higher up the food chain, but I don't doubt that I have committed hundreds or thousands of felonies in my life. Some of his examples, probably all of them, were infuriating at showing such an out-of-control system.
All the vagaries of laws was one of the primary drivers in developing my charter. I had started trying to fix those confusing aspects, and all I really did was make it more and more complicated. What I ended up with, the charter, was almost entirely to give me a baseline of an ideal "perfect" judicial system to understand goofy legal cases I encountered. It has helped with the system we have and I learned a lot more than I expected, but some things still baffle me. Why both injunctions and restraining orders? Legal explanations of the difference seem more like after-the-fact rationalizations than justifications which led naturally to the two distinct court orders.