Law is Brutality

There is a simple rule for when something needs to become a law.
And it follows from a simple, home truth about law: Law is brutality.

If you are willing to use brutality to enforce something, make it a law.
Otherwise, the law is just stupid brutality.

Numerous examples abound, from the silly to the vicious, from the momentary to those laws which will shape a nation for generations.

Are you willing to use the brutality of law to protect myself from murder, arson, theft, and assault.? Of course.

Are you willing to use the brutality of law to collect taxes? Most governments are certainly willing, that's for certain. But a law that will fine a family for not filling out a census form? -- and ultimately put them in jail?
No, that is not a legitimate application of the brutality of law.

Apply the simple principle that Law is brutality to any law, and the decision-making process is relatively simple: to make a law or not.

How do you reduce the brutality of a law? -- The most common answer is to write more laws. The effort fails. It only increases the brutality of the whole.
The only way to reduce the brutality of a law is to rescind the law and seek another way. A law fails because it is using the brutality of the law in the wrong way; or the brutality of the law is not applicable to the issue.
If a law fails, it is better to find other means to deal with an issue in society. Remove the law from the solution.

How do you influence people without laws? Leadership, examples, and information.
Let people make their own choices, young or old.

There is a concept of "duty of care" for governments and government officers at all levels.
Why does this not include the duty to seek out and rescind failed laws? Because there is no recognized standard to judge when a law is inappropriately applied.
The standard is simple: Law is brutality. When is brutality appropriately applied to an issue?

Chief Justice of the Family Court Dianne Bryant has said that the Family Law Act should be re-written from top to bottom. How does she make such a judgment? Very simply, she sees that the Family Law Act has been inappropriately applied at all levels.
She is really saying that the brutality of the law is inappropriate for nearly every issue in Family Law.
It has taken 30 years for someone of her insight to rise to a level where such a judgment can be meaningful. That's already 2-3 generations of Australians who have been poorly served by the law.

How can an average citizen tell where the brutality of law may be inappropriately applied?
We have in society a profession which lives off the gaps and inadequacies of the law: lawyers. Lawyers make their money in areas where the law is in conflict with the rights of citizens and other laws.
To see where the laws are inadequate or inappropriate, look to where the lawyers are making the most money.

Look to corporate law. A corporation is a legally-created edifice. Ideally, it is held to all the principles of law that an individual would face. But no person is responsible for the actions of the corporation. The corporation is held responsible. That creates a huge gap in the law, effectively creating a psychopath -- a faux person who is never responsible for their actions.
Corporations are formed knowing that their existance is to take advantage of the gaps in the law. Legal expenses are planned and expected.
Lawyers make millions in corporate law.

Look to family law. As is finally being recognized, there is little application for the brutality of law here. Contrary to corporate law, it is easy to recognize that when people must spend the money they would use to care for their children, to make a home, and even to eat and clothe themselves, they must spend on lawyers, -- It is an inappropriate application of the brutality of law.
Over the years, the abuse of this system has lead to tens of thousands of deaths, families being torn apart, homes and lives ruined because of the inappropriate application of the brutality of the law. Generations have suffered and will suffer because of this failing in the leadership -- of government, society, and the legal profession.
The less the courts, the police, and the law are involved, the better.
The activity of lawyers is the indication that the brutality of law in inappropriately applied.

Ideally, the law protects. This is an area of great conflict in the practical application of the law. Ideally, a severe punishment required by law will prevent certain actions such as murder, theft, rape, and assault. But the same reality of human nature is the reason they exist: human beings will commit murder, theft, rape, and assault.
Here is where the rights of the individual must be protected against abuse of the law by the officers of the law.
Because there is a conflict between the rights of the individual or group and the opportunity for abuse of the brutality of law, again, the activity of lawyers indicates what is happening. Here though, is an appropriate place for the lawyers.

Can the law not protect? Of course. Any officer of the government can abuse the law.
Here, supposedly, is the role of elected officials: to represent and oppose such knowing abuse of the law. Ideally, elected officials hold the officers of the court and police to the highest standards.
If an elected official is found to have abused the law intentionally, it is time to find a new elected official.
Any hired or appointed official of the government who abuses the law, or who condones the abuse of law, is ready for retirement -- if not jail.
Common citizens rely on the quality of government officers and elected officials. If they cannot rely on such quality, then any law is an inappropriate application of the brutality of law -- and the citizens will lose faith in their government, then ultimately their country.

Paul Donley