I’m a couple chapters into an excellent book by Paul F. Campos, a professor at CU Law School, called Jurismania. I highly recommend it, if for nothing else than his brutal slam on Boulder’s I’m-a-good-person-because-I-shop-at-Wild-Oats culture.

The basic point of the book (so far) is that our legal system is insane because our society has an unhealthy, quasi-religious, and obsessive belief in rationalism - the idea that there is an answer to every question which can be determined through rational thinking.

We love to hate politics, politicians, and lawyers, but he argues that it’s merely evidence of our inability or unwillingness to admit that the biggest, most divisive issues cannot be resolved through rational means.

Do I agree with him? Don’t know yet.

—– update —–

Now the book is getting interesting. He uses analogies from sports betting and stock market investing to suggest that, by the time a legal dispute reaches the formal legal system (in the US), it has already proven itself to be rationally and legally ambiguous. If a particular legal outcome was likely, the case would very probably have been settled out of court (in a civil dispute) , or plea bargained (in a criminal proceeding). In other words, by the time a case of some kind appears in court, its outcome is, by definition, probably beyond the reach of rational thinking.

Your reaction, dear reader, is probably something like, “So … what?” This reaction is normal, and in fact, means that you’re sane.

However, to crazy people like me who look at politics and government as sporting event worthy of a bag of corn chips and pound of guacamole, it’s a big deal. It means that a significant portion of the law-making process, something that’s supposed to be performed by our elected legislators, is actually performed by a bunch of judges robed yahoos.

At least I think that’s what he’s saying. It’s rather late.

—– update —– (encouraged by danb’s comment)

I haven’t gotten much farther. So far his most significant point is that in the noble pursuit creating a fair trial system, we’ve created a system that is too expensive, too confusing, too complicated, and too time consuming for all but the well-funded to take advantage of. Most ordinary people, and certainly the poor and disenfranchised who the system’s fairness is intended to protect, are forced to settle out of court or take a plea bargain. Only 5% of cases ever get a trial. Which is worse? A less-than-perfectly-fair trial? Or no trial at all?

This stuff is great. I should go to law school.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, May 29th, 2007 at 9:18 pm and is filed under Blather, Politics, Current Events, Colorado. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.