Introductions to the Science of Law

 

© 5GL Software, Australia

"In the course of my research, when I go to a lawyer or a court of law, I don't worry about what the law or laws are because I make sure I know the applicable laws - what I worry about is how insane these people are!"

(CEO, 5GL Software)

Links

Introductory presentations on psycholegalanalysis
Treatise: Science of Law
Treatise: Insanity of the Religion of Law

Uniforms and names can blind us! Consider the photo. Royal Easter Show, 2010, Sydney, Australia. Enormous crowd! Among mother's holding onto 3 and 4 year olds, two policemen on horses.One kick and a child's head may roll off. That is endangering human life which is against Australian Law and carries a 4 year prison sentence. Who is to charge these two? Decisions of higher courts of law can fall into the same bracket. Those decisions useful to society are usually made known to the public - but how many of these decisions are not useful to society, violate or corrupt the intent of a law, and make life more difficult for the vast majority? Just because a decision has been made by a court of law does not mean it is consistent with the intent of a law, or that it is "legal" in the strict sense, or that it is normal or sane or rational. Judges love to use the words "a rational person would". That is a joke because these people can not be considered as rational in any sense of the word. To be rational means to appreciate the world as it is and the forces in life that have a dynamic impact on a person. To reduce ethics, morals, and right and wrong, to a set of legal precedents is a "fixation" not "rationality". Is a soldier who trains to kill rational? No, that is just what he or she is taught to do. Nothing to do with rationality. Same with courts of law. Nothing to do with rationality merely interpreting and compelling obedience to a set of rules called laws. If only these courts could understand properly non-trivial laws!

Law is something that governs all countries. Usually a government decides on a law and the courts implement such.

Let us now examine the above. Is it an assertion? Is it a hypothesis? Or is it a statement of fact in which case let us define such as “truth”.

What is a science? Allow us to define science as a study of natural phenonema. A science usually involves observation, putting together a cohesive theory, and experimentation and validation or improvement on that theory.

There are other laws not just man made laws. The law of gravity for example. Such natural laws are all around us. A baby begins to observe such from a young age.

The plasticity or adaptability of the human brain has allowed the human species to dominate and control much of its environment.

However, that adaptability works in all areas of society. The apprentice desiring to be a carpenter has to learn a skill. Learning requires modification of brain pathways in order to accommodate that learning. The human brain is known to selectively kills of cells no longer useful to it, cells which contain old learning. Why it does this for some such learning, and not for other learning, is a mystery.

The “science of law” is very much about observing “law” as made by man, however, the only way we can observe this is by a study of those who are lawyers, law enforcers, magistrates, judges.

Politicians decide on laws. Law writers then attempt to translate the desires of the politicians into a legal framework by defining laws.

Here is the first problem! How politicians think and reason, is not how lawyers think and reason. Even when a politician had studied law, by the time they are elected representatives they no longer can be counted on having the same brain pathway formations as lawyers.

Hence, the first “uncertainty” that enters any law is the “gap” between what the government wants, and how it is put into words. Not an issue with simple laws. A law which restricts the speed of a car on a particular road is hardly open to manipulation or misinterpretation.

The “uncertainty” that enters any non-trivial law is a variable, let us call is X. X is a measure of how open to manipulation or misinterpretation a law is. For simple laws, X is always 0.

Consider a law “no car shall travel more than 50 klms on Ocean Road”.

A man caught speeding argues that he is not driving a car, but a truck, and the law is not about trucks.

Is this valid? What was the intent of the law? If the intent was to reduce the speed of vehicles because this was a busy road with many tourists, then the argument is not valid. Even if the law writers wrote “car”, common sense clearly says that any vehicle is subject to this law.

Rationality Measure 1 A person who can appreciate an “intent” of a law and is not fixated on specific word or term. This in fact should be a clinical key. Any lawyer who can not grasp intent but is fixated on a specific point of law - is possibly as "insane" as some psychiatric patients. What are mental blocks? Functions in the brain and psyche that result in a mental illness to some degree - but a fixation as described is the same as a mental block. However, this does depend on intelligence and intellect. The lower the intellect and intelligence, the more a person accepts a literal interpreation but that is not because this is a fixation, but it is because that is all a person can understand.

Assume, hypothetically, a driver is caught at 60 klms on that section of Ocean Road which has been renamed to New Ocean Road. He argues in court that the law applies to Ocean Road and not New Ocean Road. Is this fair?

Rationality Measure 2 When the intent of a law or rule is ambiguous, then in order to be fair, the law must not apply.

First Rule of the Science of Law In order for this science to work, laws must always be correctly or fairly applied.

However, consider the uncertainty that can enter interpretation of a law.

Second Rule of the Science of Law – Integrity of Law In order for the first rule of law to always apply, the X in a law must approach NIL.

Allow us to turn to a previous example. A man in a truck is caught speeding on Ocean Road. What is the X in the law?

While the law is intended to cover any heavy object travelling or being pushed down the road, because it only mentions “car” the X=100.

In this case, by our second rule, this law can never be correctly or fairly applied when anything other than a “car” is caught speeding. This does not mean rule one is invalid or can not be used.

Third Rule of the Science of Law – Clarification of Law A court of law has the obligation to make a decision that clarifies or improves the meaning of a particular law. However, this can never be the case if X approaches NIL.

Hence the judge making a determination can thus write “the law in question, in my view, also covers any vehicle and restricts the speed of that vehicle.”
In ordinary life situations, things are seldom black and white. Any existing law which appears to apply may have X=100 in which case it is up to the court to decide if the law should apply and if so to modify by setting legal precedents.

Fourth Rule of the Science of Law – Corruption of Law If X is sufficiently close to NIL, then making any decision that expands or alters the intent, is in fact corrupting the law.

The bias of a judge can be said to be Y. Ideally this should approach NIL.
Let us break this Y into variables: Y = sum of y’s. The human reason can be slow to understand that which it is presented with – but the human unconscious is automatic recognition.
y1: A man representing himself versus an established and highly regarded legal firm. Unconscious bias of a judge is -100 against the man.
y2: The man is not wearing a suit, but a worn out shirt and torn shorts and thongs. The bias of the judge is now -200.
y3: The man has a record of a court order issued against him. The bias of the judge is now -300.
y4: The man is unemployed. The bias is now -400.
y5: The man recently divorced. The bias is now -500.