Laws are not for ordinary people, they are for lawyers.

Laws are not for ordinary people, they are for lawyers.

I completely agree with this statement. Unfortunately, practically all laws contain special legal terms (and this is inevitable) and the language of law is so complex that ordinary people can’t just make out the meaning without the help of a lawyer. Of course, someone will contradict saying that laws are made for the people. However, I think our laws are made to meet just the needs of our government.

Looking back in the past we see that kings made laws to provide themselves with power and hold ordinary people in obedience. That is why the less intelligent the society was, the simpler it was to rule it. The Chinese philosopher Confucius said: “It’s possible to make people obey, but it’s impossible to make them understand what for”.

Unfortunately in modern society the situation has not changed and laws are still created for and by governors.

However it is obvious that our lawgivers should change their attitude towards law making, because if we want to live in the developed society laws must be made comprehensive not only for lawyers but for ordinary people as well.

Laws are not for ordinary people, they are for lawyers.

In my opinion the saying “Laws are not for ordinary people, they are for lawyers” very accurately reflects the Russian lifestyle.

This statement might mean that our laws are sometimes confusing and even illogical. Many years ago Thomas More, the English thinker and statesman, said that a prosperous State should have simple laws. However, there is no need for lawyers in such a state because its citizens will understand laws themselves and they will be able to interpret them in a proper way.

Having this in mind, I still disagree with the idea that life is only good in a state where laws are simple and understandable. It’s too idealistic because the society is constantly developing and therefore it is becoming more and more complicated.

Let’s take Moscow streets as an example. Very often it seems that pedestrians who are trying to cross the street, cars and traffic lights are not interconnected at all!

When I’m watching it, two personalities are struggling inside me. The first one is a common Russian citizen who knows what the red light signal means…but if there are no cars …. “Why shouldn’t I go and quickly cross this road!!!” The second one is a young lawyers who stubbornly stands at the road-crossing trying to convince himself “Well, if not me then who should follow the rules?”

Well, frankly speaking I am in favour of complicated laws because they justify the existence of the profession of a lawyer.

I would like to start my speech with a story that a friend of mine told me yesterday.

An indignant lawyer reproaches the judge: "Last time you charged my client with a theft committed in broad daylight. This time you are bringing charges for the artful robbery committed at night. Can you please tell me now, when exactly my client ought to steal?!!!

The joke suggests that people like this thief should study laws just to know when they should rob other people and when they should not.

You know that there wasn't any law in the primitive society. And, of course, all of you know, that one of the first written codes of law appeared in Babylonia. Does anybody here know what laws I am talking about? Yeah, you are right. It's the Code of Hammurabi. All of us have heard a lot about it. But have you ever heard about a jurist or a lawyer in Babylonia? The answer is "No". That is why I can assert that law was addressed to every member of Babylonian community: to the rich and to the poor; to government officials, priests, and soldiers, merchants, labourers and artisans.

Laws aren't made only for lawyers. They have always been meant for all of us. If it were not so, you wouldn't know your rights - what you can and what you can t do. You would be absolutely helpless. And lawyers would be the most powerful and rich people (by the way, this is not very bad, I think). There would appear a necessity of putting at least one policeman at every street corner to prevent people from breaking the law. In fact, every man would become a potential offender.

Let's make a speculative assumption: A respectable man in a black suit with a black case comes to you and says that the government and the state need the house you live in. Then he shows you some papers, says that according to the law you must leave your house at once. And then goes to your kitchen and starts having tea while waiting for you to go away. And you just pack your things, say Goodbye to your house and leave. Then, standing in the street you begin to realize, that you haven t got a home any more and you have got no place to live in. And you'll have to go your Old Folks, and, perhaps, to live with them for another couple of years, before you earn enough money to buy yourself a new flat.

But if you were acquainted with the law, at least with the Constitution (the most important of all our laws), you would know, that according to the article #35 of the Constitution, if the state needs your house and wants you to leave it, you ought to do so, but the state must present you a new house, equal in cost to that of yours. And if you knew that, you wouldn't feel desperate and homeless for a single moment, and, of course, you wouldn't t have to live with your parents for another couple of years.

I can give you many more examples, but all of them prove the same idea. That is why I can surely say, that laws aren't made only for lawyers, they are made for ordinary people as well. And if you want to be a literate person, if you want to know your rights and duties, if you don t want such nasty things to happen to you, you should study the Law, at least you should know the Constitution. Don t let the government fool you, be smart!

Thank you for your attention!

Judge: You've been found guilty of not stopping at the red traffic light when you should've done. What do you have to say for yourself? The defendant: Your Honour! I alawys stop at green traffic lights when I don't have to…

This joke shows us that people do not always know their rights and obligations. There are some widely known rules which are followed by everyone - just for self-protection. For example, what would people do, unless there are some rules of the road?

But there are other very important rules and laws, closely connected with our everyday life. Unfortunately almost none of us knows them well. The knowledge of law is very important in every society, for every human being. If you know your rights well, you could demand that others should respect and observe them. In the absence of law you could only rely upon the law of the jungle.

As for me, I don't agree with the idea that laws are not for ordinary people, but for lawyers. I know that there are some special legal terms, which are unknown to the majority of the people. But ordinary people should try to improve their general knowledge of law. They should know their rights listed in the Constitution. It goes without saying that average citizens don't have to learn and understand all kinds of rules and laws. Therefore it is the job of a lawyer to interpret complex legal theory and precedents and "translate" them into layman's terms. That is why lay people have to consult lawyers in order to get legal advice.

I hope that in the future more and more ordinary people will know their rights better. This is not an easy thing to do, but I believe that very soon familiarity with law will allow people to live safely and comfortably and enjoy their legal rights.

In any case, though laws are made for ordinary people, lawyers are the only people capable of making sense of all the tricky rules and regulations. In modern society lawyers are considered to be the cornerstone of the sophisticated legal system. That's one of the reasons why they demand huge payments for their work.

However it's obvious that lawyers do the job, which is essential for the society we live in.

Once upon a time, the famous English philosopher and lawyer Jeremiah Bentham said, "If there weren't any laws, all the lawyers would die out from starvation". This statement surely has a grain of truth since throughout history laws have often been created in the form incomprehensible for ordinary people. The first written sets of laws were very concrete, casual, and dealt with particular cases. For example: "If a man has bitten off another man's finger, the bitten man shall bite off the first man's finger too". That's why those ancient laws were far clearer for ordinary people than modern ones. But in time, the legal language - legalese - had changed a lot, and it has become rather difficult for lay people to understand what all those laws really mean.

Ordinary people have always understood the simple biblical rules of behavior - thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not sin, and so on - but sometimes they're just unable to make sense of the meaning of the words written in a particular law. And, therefore, these poor ordinary people need lawyers because only a lawyer can understand the law created by another lawyer.

The Roman lawyers used to say, "Law is what we explain", and they weren't far from the truth. In the modern society, lots of laws and law codes are written in such a mysterious language that it's absolutely clear - these laws are not for ordinary people. And a lawyer is to explain, clarify all these frightening legal terms, "translate" them into our everyday language. That's also one of the ways a lawyer earns his money - by giving legal advice to ordinary people, and thus lawyers are sometimes believed to have made laws more complicated just in order to make more money.

However, nowadays there seems to be a trend to make laws more comprehensible, more readable, so that even a housewife could grasp the meaning of some clauses from the Civil Code. This can be seen, for example, in some European countries, and it really makes us believe that laws are going to be made for all people. And we won't have to pay for legal aid in order to mitigate the penalty for killing our rowdy neighbors.

SUMMARY

Because every law springs from a system of values and beliefs, every law is an instance of legislating Morality. Further, because a nation’s laws always exercise a pedagogical or teaching influence, law inescapably exerts a shaping effect over the beliefs, character, and actions of the nation’s citizens, whether for good or ill. Those who seek to separate morality from law, therefore, are in pursuit both of the impossible and the destructive. The question before us is never whether or not to legislate morality, but which moral system ought to be made legally binding.

The constant or determined repetition of an error does not make it true. Errors are errors regardless of their prevalence or the persistence of those who advance them. Indeed, given the egregious foolishness of some of our most widespread beliefs in the recent past, the great popularity or predominance of a notion sometimes is enough to raise suspicions about its truthfulness. We moderns too eagerly and too often live our lives on the basis of insupportable, indefensible, half-true “truisms” that cannot stand up to close analysis. The assertion that you cannot legislate morality is just such a notion. No matter how often one hears that you cannot legislate morality, the truth is that you can legislate nothing else.

All laws, whether prescriptive or prohibitive, legislate morality. All laws, regardless of their content or their intent, arise from a system of values, from a belief that some things are right and others wrong, that some things are good and others bad, that some things are better and others worse. In the formulation and enforcement of law, the question is never whether or not morality will be legislated, but which one. That question is fundamentally important because not all systems of morality are equal. Some are wise, others foolish. Few are still in their first incarnation, nearly all having been enshrined as law at some time or place, often with predictable results. For better or worse, every piece of legislation touches directly or indirectly on moral issues, or is based on moral judgments and evaluations concerning what it is we want or believe ought to be, what it is we want or believe we ought to produce and preserve.

«Лучшие законы рождаются из обычаев».

Ж. Жубер

Я согласна с мнением Ж.Жубера. Этим выражением он хотел сказать, что все законы произошли от древних обычаев. Со временем государство заменило родовую общину, что повлекло превращение обычаев в законы. Процесс формирования права, государства и законов занял не одно столетие. Общественные отношения регулировал обычай, так как в праве и в законе не было потребности. Труд был коллективен, собственность общей, поэтому не имело смысла заявлять права на чужую собственность.

С развитием человечества возникло усложнение общественной жизни, стало ясно, что обычаи не смогут регулировать все стороны общественных отношений, появилась потребность в законах.Понадобилась «третья сила», которая смогла бы рассудить конфликты и споры противоборствующих сторон. Это стало причиной возникновения государства.

Нельзя создавать законы против обычая, устоя. Есть определенный уклад жизни на протяжении существования человечества (обычаи), и законы должны только узаконить, а не перечеркнуть их. Но в то же время не все обычаи достойны узаконивания.

Приживаются не всегда добрые обычаи. В обществе с плохими нравами рождаются и живут такие же недобрые обычаи. Поэтому одним людям хочется "прививать" другим людям то, что первым кажется "добрым".

Следовательно, законы появляются из обычаев, а на обычаи имеют влияние нравы. Нравы- привычки, чувства, верования, общие для группы людей, имеющие моральную ценность образцы поведения, сложившиеся в ходе длительного исторического развития. В нравах сохраняются не только те образцы поведения, которые имеют непреходящее значение и являются неотъемлемой властью культурных традиций, но и те, которые препятствуют дальнейшему развитию культуры, ограничивают свободу морального выбора человека.. или социальные привычки образуют первичную форму права, основанную на традиции, или право обычая. Обычаи- укоренившееся, повторяющееся с давних пор в каком-либо обществе действие. Основной способ управления поведением в догосударственном обществе в условиях родовых отношений. Обычаи складываются в процессе жизнедеятельности общества. Если они получают признание государства и обеспечиваются его принудительной силой, то становятся правовыми. Социальные нормы - правила, регулирующие поведение людей, деятельность организаций в их взаимоотношениях. Закон — набор правил или норм поведения, который определяет отношения между людьми, организациями, государством/государствами. Связь между этими терминами очевидна, что доказывает правоту Жубера.

Примером является обычай изгонять провинившихся из племени перешёл в закон об изолировании преступников от общества. Также племена избирали себе вождя и совет старейшин, слушались их во всём - это перешло законы о выборах и власти.

Дата добавления: 2015-10-24