Saturday, February 04, 2006

New Response Paper Topics

Greetings and salutations. Your second response paper is due Thursday, February 9. Write on ONE of the two questions below. Your paper should reference one or more of the current unit's readings"

· "Rhetoric and its Denial in Legal Discourse"
· "A Night in the Topics"
· "Law and Music"

Here are your questions--remember, write on one or the other:

1. What does the law sound like?
2. In what ways is law a science? In what ways is law an art? Is it MORE like an art, or a science?

Have fun writing. As usual, I can look at drafts of your paper up to 24 hours before it is due!!!


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just a comment on the visual setting in a court room. It is all about hierarchy. The most powerful person is at the front on in an elevated spot. Then next is the lawyers and clients pleading their cases. Then the jury off to the side. Then the insignificant bystanders sitting in the back watching for one reason or another. This might not be anything but it seems obvious i guess.
Scott Sheets

12:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hierarchy- To me it seems like nothing would ever be solved or no decisions be made in a timely mannor. If there is not a person who has the authority to make decisions and say what is going to be done. In a business or legal setting we would just have a bunch of people who think they know best and it would just turn out in chaos or endless arguments.

Scott Sheets

12:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neutrality- If a person is going to believe in and trust a system, he must feel that it is going to be fair to him as well as others. If not a person would never really feel obligated to abey rules or laws.

Scott Sheets

12:52 PM  
Blogger Holly said...

I agree with scott, if there wasn't someone that was in charge of the courtroom (judge) then nothing would get done. without someone sitting there to regulate what's going on and make sense of the arguments from each side, then it's the whole idea of too many cheifs not enough indians (no offense to anyone...)
without some one in charge things would never get solved and would go one forever, with probably no one being happy with the situation.

10:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

maybe nothing would get done without a judge but then why does Aristotle stress good laws made by many rather than taking a change with what judge would decide??


6:04 PM  
Blogger Holly said...

I don't know what aristotles point is most of the time, but the problem with many people making the law is that they all will not fully, completly agree with each other. someone will not be happy with the decision. even if they are able to come to a decision, they still a person, say a judge, to intrepret what that law means, and hopefully to enforce it if it has been broken.
besides, i don't know what it was like back in the day, but i don't think they had some of the crimes that we have nowadays. Each judge would decide differently how things should be handled, but they are supposed to be trained in what they are doing, and should be able to make a sound decision, although i know this doesn't always happen.
the law is kind of funny, they are written this way or that way, but everyone is so different, how do they ever make sense? i guess we are just suppossed to grow up knowing right from wrong.

12:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A thought on what Justina and Holly are saying about judges. I think it is important to remember that most often judges are not MAKING the law, but instead interpreting it. For example in a criminal courtroom the judge is not making law but interpreting how it should be applied regarding the specific situation, and in a Supreme Court ruling they are deciding whether the law is justfiable based on constitutional analysis. Thus Aristotle's idea that laws should be made by the many not the few is still intact since most laws in the US are voted into action by a series of process and a number of people. It is just that judges need to help apply them.

6:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry that last anonymous was by Sara Whittle. I forgot to add it on the end.

6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

While I agree that judges can help apply laws- think school desegregation or the break up of Ma Bell- they are by and large evaluators and valid-ation attendants to the law.

-Tony C. Yang

10:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Holly, it what way do you mean that in the old days they didn't have some of the crimes we do today. I think overall, for the major offenses there is a clear similarity. There is still murder, rape and abuse. Even back then they didn't have a word for rape, or terms of how to handle it, but it was still there and it happened. We have thinks like check fraud and computer problems (stolen identity, stock market problems ect.) but the major incidents still occured. I think that the laws are still based on the hierarchy like Scott said, because there was always someone in charge, the "sheriff" was there when the train robbers came into town, but they still maintained order in one fasion or another.

3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I agree with what Sara was saying--judges do not make up laws, they interpret them. Laws are set in place, and in many cases, the judges apply the laws on a case by case basis to determine their legality based on a constitutional analysis. What one judge may find to violate the constitution in one case, another judge may find that it does not. It's all up to their discretionary power.

11:41 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Who knows where to download XRumer 5.0 Palladium?
Help, please. All recommend this program to effectively advertise on the Internet, this is the best program!

9:11 AM  
Anonymous generic cialis said...

Hi, well be sensible, well-all described

3:03 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home