Are laws meant to be ethical?

leftrightleftrightleft · Nov 26, 2015

Is there a distinction made between judicial laws and ethics?

It seems that sometimes, something can be legally okay but appears unethical. I think this is the whole basis of the term "legal loophole". Legal loopholes are those weird things that are correct and admissible in a court of law even though they seem incorrect and inadmissible to the general public.

Some examples:

Example #1:
"The event happened in the city of Jervis Bay in Australia, which is notable because it's an annexed part of federal land so that our capital territory can have an active port.

My professor's client had gotten into a fight on the beach and, in knee deep water, proceeded to beat the [blank] out of the guy he was fighting.

Assault charges were laid and it went to court.

My professor managed to find that, at the time, the delineation of the federal land around Jervis bay ended at the high water mark.

Also, at that time, the delineation of the coastal region belonging to the state ended at the low water mark.

He managed to show that, because the crime had happened in between these two points, neither the state or federal court had jurisdiction to try the client, and he got off."

Example #2:
"if you have knowledge that the loan company is coming to repossess your car, parking it on the neighbors property will most likely not allow us to proceed.

Contracts don't allow us to repossess from different addresses on the warrant, cars parked at the neighbors, we can't touch it."

It seems obviously unethical to beat up some guy and face no repercussions, yet that seems to be the way the judicial system is set up at times.

Thoughts?

Link

SkyWriting · Nov 26, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
Is there a distinction made between judicial laws and ethics?It seems that sometimes, something can be legally okay but appears unethical. I think this is the whole basis of the term "legal loophole". Legal loopholes are those weird things that are correct and admissible in a court of law even though they seem incorrect and inadmissible to the general public. It seems obviously unethical to beat up some guy and face no repercussions, yet that seems to be the way the judicial system is set up at times.
Thoughts?Link

Morality is the personal basis for decisions making.
Ethics are group behavior that is generally accepted.
Laws result when the groups feels that the ethics of the
situation are important and universal enough that
they need to be codified into law.

OldWiseGuy · Nov 28, 2015

Happily most cases are subject to the judgment of the court, unless mandatory limitations are in place.

asherahSamaria · Nov 28, 2015

In Saudi Arabia, if you recant your belief in Islam you get put to death - according to the law. I don't consider that to be ethical under any circumstances.

Eudaimonist · Nov 29, 2015

I would hope that laws are ethically justified, but that doesn't mean that laws are ethical statements in and of themselves. They exist for the purpose of making a society possible, and that means that they need to discourage certain sorts of aggressive actions, such as murder, rape, and theft. They aren't there to make people good people, but to free them from the sort of aggressions or encroachments that make a good life difficult to lead. Murder, rape, and theft may be immoral, but more to the point they get in the way of other people's lives.

eudaimonia,

Mark

OldWiseGuy · Nov 29, 2015

Eudaimonist said:
I would hope that laws are ethically justified, but that doesn't mean that laws are ethical statements in and of themselves. They exist for the purpose of making a society possible, and that means that they need to discourage certain sorts of aggressive actions, such as murder, rape, and theft. They aren't there to make people good people, but to free them from the sort of aggressions or encroachments that make a good life difficult to lead. Murder, rape, and theft may be immoral, but more to the point they get in the way of other people's lives.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Rape and other such offences are adjudicated on a purely moral basis.

jayem · Nov 29, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
It seems that sometimes, something can be legally okay but appears unethical. I think this is the whole basis of the term "legal loophole". Legal loopholes are those weird things that are correct and admissible in a court of law even though they seem incorrect and inadmissible to the general public.

Our laws, in actual practice, operate on an ethical hierarchy. Some acts are wrong, but trying to outlaw them may result in a greater wrong. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. For example: No one can face double jeopardy. If a murder suspect is acquitted, he cannot be prosecuted again, on the same charge in the same jurisdiction, even if new evidence is found that conclusively proves he committed the crime. Another example might be freedom of speech. Most of the general public would agree that picketing military funerals with "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" signs is morally reprehensible. But that crackpot church has the legal right to do just that. Because prohibiting the peaceful expression of opinions is a greater wrong than the opinions themselves.

Eudaimonist · Nov 29, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
Rape and other such offences are adjudicated on a purely moral basis.

I don't agree. They "break the King's peace", to use an old term. They break the peace of society, and that is why they are illegal.

eudaimonia,

Mark

OldWiseGuy · Nov 29, 2015

Eudaimonist said:
I don't agree. They "break the King's peace", to use an old term. They break the peace of society, and that is why they are illegal.

eudaimonia,

Mark

If true we've set a low bar for 'peace'. Then there's this:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...l-turpitude-according-us-immigration-law.html

Defining “Crime of Moral Turpitude”
"Written opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) describe moral turpitude as a “nebulous concept,” and one that “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one's fellow man or society in general.” The person committing it should have had either an “evil intent” or been acting recklessly."

"Among the many specific offenses that the U.S. government and courts have determined to be CMTs in individual cases are:

murder

voluntary manslaughter

involuntary manslaughter, in some cases

rape

spousal abuse

child abuse

incest

kidnaping

robbery

aggravated assault

mayhem

animal fighting

theft

fraud, and

conspiracy, attempt, or acting as an accessory to a crime if that crime involved moral turpitude."

leftrightleftrightleft · Nov 30, 2015

jayem said:
Our laws, in actual practice, operate on an ethical hierarchy. Some acts are wrong, but trying to outlaw them may result in a greater wrong. That's why we have a Bill of Rights. For example: No one can face double jeopardy. If a murder suspect is acquitted, he cannot be prosecuted again, on the same charge in the same jurisdiction, even if new evidence is found that conclusively proves he committed the crime.

This is precisely the type of unethical "loophole" which seems so wrong though. If someone committed a crime, shouldn't they be punished or rehabilitated for that crime, regardless of "when" the evidence comes to light? I don't see the ethical hierarchy in this example...

Another example might be freedom of speech. Most of the general public would agree that picketing military funerals with "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" signs is morally reprehensible. But that crackpot church has the legal right to do just that. Because prohibiting the peaceful expression of opinions is a greater wrong than the opinions themselves.

This is a good example of ethical hierarchies. Thanks.

Eudaimonist · Nov 30, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
If true we've set a low bar for 'peace'. Then there's this:
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...l-turpitude-according-us-immigration-law.html

Defining “Crime of Moral Turpitude”
"Written opinions from the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) describe moral turpitude as a “nebulous concept,” and one that “refers generally to conduct that shocks the public conscience as being inherently base, vile, or depraved, contrary to the rules of morality and the duties owed between man and man, either one's fellow man or society in general.” The person committing it should have had either an “evil intent” or been acting recklessly."

"Among the many specific offenses that the U.S. government and courts have determined to be CMTs in individual cases are:

murder

voluntary manslaughter

involuntary manslaughter, in some cases

rape

spousal abuse

child abuse

incest

kidnaping

robbery

aggravated assault

mayhem

animal fighting

theft

fraud, and

conspiracy, attempt, or acting as an accessory to a crime if that crime involved moral turpitude."

Yeah, so? They might very well "shock the public conscience". So what?

And what is the point of quoting the Board of Immigration Appeals?

I am puzzled as to your point. Are you supporting me, or attempting to show that I'm wrong on this issue?

eudaimonia,

Mark

jayem · Nov 30, 2015

leftrightleftrightleft said:
This is precisely the type of unethical "loophole" which seems so wrong though. If someone committed a crime, shouldn't they be punished or rehabilitated for that crime, regardless of "when" the evidence comes to light? I don't see the ethical hierarchy in this example...

Because not prohibiting double jeopardy gives excessive power to government. Madison was well aware of the English experience, where the King's courts would try suspects over and over again for the same crime until they found a jury that would convict them. This obviously can be--and was--a tool for government abuse. So under our Constitution, the state gets one bite at the apple to prove a defendant guilty. Even if this means a criminal may sometimes go free, the greater evil is allowing the criminal justice system to be used for government repression. And that is an ethical hierarchy.

OldWiseGuy · Nov 30, 2015

Eudaimonist said:
Yeah, so? They might very well "shock the public conscience". So what?

And what is the point of quoting the Board of Immigration Appeals?

I am puzzled as to your point. Are you supporting me, or attempting to show that I'm wrong on this issue?

eudaimonia,

Mark

I'm pointing out that there is a moral element to the law. Law breaking isn't just a matter of 'disturbing the peace'.

Eudaimonist · Nov 30, 2015

OldWiseGuy said:
I'm pointing out that there is a moral element to the law. Law breaking isn't just a matter of 'disturbing the peace'.

I agree that there is a moral element to the law. What I'm objecting to is the idea that laws are simply straightforward moral rules. I don't think that they are quite that.

eudaimonia,

Mark

Are laws meant to be ethical?

Well-Known Member

The Librarian

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Wake me when it's soup.

Naturalist

I believe in life before death!

Wake me when it's soup.

Well-Known Member

I believe in life before death!

Naturalist

Wake me when it's soup.

I believe in life before death!

Similar threads