The non-objectivity of the law is an incredibly complicated thing. The influences on people that influence the law are enormous, from religion to other personal motivations, like revenge. Juries cannot possibly be impartial due to their personal experiences, judges have more practice but still do not manage it perfectly. Have a mock trial twice with a different judge each time and they will very unlikely make the exact same decisions. As long as that happens the law is not completely fair. So what do we do? Artificial intelligences for the judge and jury? And even then, what about the laws? Differing groups will always push for laws that conform to their beliefs. As long as people are not impartial, the law won't be either.

???

I believe Rhode Island has a law in which only citizens from 1 town are allowed to remove sand from the beach. Illegal for anyone else to do so.
------
Know of a few stories in which a judicial clerk was asked by a judge to write a brief to support both sides of an issue.

Then the judge picked which to go with.

Many times it was not based on more than his feeling of which side he liked better.

To which the saying, "A trial is not an investigation into the truth. A trail does not decide truth. Instead, a trial is a resolution of a dispute."

And I believe that anyone who is old enough to take a bullet is old enough to drink.

Your point about juries and impartiality is non sequitur. The concept of impartiality of the jury is based on not being parties to the case. Also, in some venues, potential jurors may be kept from serving on a jury if they are found to be partial to one side or the other.

Your point about the law itself is getting more at the point of the thread. You point out that "groups will always push for laws that conform to their beliefs" and "as long as people are not impartial, the law won't be either."

Just because a "group" pushes for "laws that conform to their beliefs" doesn't necessarily mean that such laws should be enacted.

If you could design a system to negate the partiality aspects of writing the law, then what elements would be needed to accomplish that?

Oh great and mighty guru (heavy sarcasm),

Perhaps you can enlighten us on how you obtain something pure by having it mixed with tainted substances.

You can never get objectivity, pure objectivity, when dealing with people who are subjective. By nature are subjective.

Every law is tainted by subjectivity. Every ruling is tainted by subjectivity.

And some would say it is that subjectivity is actually good in some instances. But if good in some instances, it also must be bad in some instances.

-----

Found some new laws that are a bit beyond what is needed.

In Wisconsin, it is illegal for margarine to be colored yellow. The dairy farmers there have lobbied to protect butter. Only butter may be yellow.

In LA, they are proposing to ban fast food restaraunts from poor neighborhoods claiming there just isn't enough good food in poor areas. They have also banned plastic bags. L.A. wants yearlong fast food ban - Food Inc. - MSNBC.com

So not only are you not allowed to eat what you want (if poor, and thus creating a 2 tiered system), you can't get good food (because nice restaraunts and stores don't want to open into a poor area because it is "poor" business sense), and if you were to find a healthy grocery store, you can't get the groceries home because no plastic bags to carry them in (using paper isn't environmentally friendly...poor trees....and since you are "poor" you can't afford the more expensive cloth bags).

Cat in the hat syndrome. People trying to justify their salaries by creating excessive laws.

Just because they weren't the direct recipients of the illegal action does not mean they will be impartial. Even after screening, it is impossible to find a person that can completely unemotionally and dispassionately weigh the facts. Everyone is colored by their experiences.

In order to make the lawmaking process objective, we would have to remove people from it. I cannot think of a viable way to do that.

This follows.

Eg:

Law says, "Do not drive over 80 km/hr."
Person was driving at 85 km/hr.

Did this person break the law?

We are talking about impartiality of the law. Can you think of a way to make lawmaking impartial?

By processing out the impurities.

What was the term you used?

non sequitur?

People are impure by nature.

As such, you cannot start with impurity, stick with impurity, and process out impurities.

Keeping an impurity in the equation (people), you always have that as a constant.

Congratulations on actually disagreeing in a civil manner.


People may be the constant, but they are not the subject of the purification. Bear in mind that impartiality is actually a duty in some areas (judging, for example).

If impartiality is a duty, then impartiality is possible. If impartiality is possilble, then impartiality can be applied. Therefore, if impartiality is a duty, then impartiality can be applied.

In the United States (as I have read), when a bill becomes a law, it is still possible that it may be "struck down." How/why is this done?

Go f^ck yourself you condescending prick.

Maybe you need to take black and white as black and white, and leave your rose colored glasses for when you smoke weed.

Impartiality is a goal.
One that can NEVER be obtained.

LOL.
If impartiality is impartiality, then it is impartial?
If impartiality is a duty, it is possible to be applied, and can be applied?

You can never get pure impartiality from a group that is subjective. You cannot make the subjective remove subjectivity, for it is subjective by definition.

Many reasons.

1. Unconstitutional.
2. Vague.
3. Overbroad.
4. Too narrow.

Let's examine each one of those...you know...as a test for impartiality. Test your circular logic...

1. Unconstitutional. Who decides? Judges. Are judges bound by the law? Supposed to be. But if they were actually bound, then you wouldn't have terms like "activist judges" would you?

Unconstitutionality actually starts in the lower courts. From there, it goes to courts of appeals. An entire different set of judges. From there, it goes to the mighty 9.

Now in each situation, you have different opinions in the lower court. You get different opinions based on states, or circuits. You have majority/minority opinions within states/circuits. Then you have the controlling faction within the SC.

If impartial, there wouldn't be so many differing opinions. But it is subjective.

2. Vague. The law is supposed to be impartial. Yet it is thrown out because of being vague. Vague by whose standards? Who decides? Subjective individuals. What is vague to 1 may not be vague to another.

3 & 4. Overbroad and too narrow. Who determines if a law is overbroad and reaches too far? Judges. Same judges who are possibly activist judges. Same judges who are rules by subjective opinions.

So where are you filtering the impurities?

Argumentum ad hominem.

Argumentum ad hominem.

Invincible ignorance fallacy.