I'm not sure that Professor Katz makes the case that the law is perverse.
Why the Law is So Perverse
He does show the complexity and the complexity in human decision-making in the legal system. I suppose that title is not quite as catchy. That title is more closely aligned with the style of writing and content. For me, the book was like stepping back into law school and analyzing choices and consequences of actions in the context of legal decision making. That means there are some interesting puzzles and thought exercises. It also means that it's a bit disconnected from the real world. Two disclosures.
First, the publisher supplied me with a free copy of the book. Second, some of the statements in the book left me bitter with the way Professor Katz characterized the legal profession. I don't know any lawyers who get excited looking for loopholes, or who would even call their daily practice exploiting loopholes.
On the criminal side, it's all about the evidence and culpability. On the business side it's about trying to figure out what the government will allow and not allow. The law is complex and the decision-making is difficult, but that doesn't make it perverse and doesn't make the lawyer's job one of merely searching for loopholes. In a whimsical example of a loophole, Professor Katz uses children cutting in line.
Why the Law is So Perverse | April 20, - "Why the Law i… | Flickr
According to playground law, line-cutting requires the consent of the party who will be immediately behind the cutter. So you can let someone cut into the line in front of you, but no backsies. The loophole is to allow the cut in front, then let the consenting party cut in front of you. A tremendous loophole. Professor Katz even parades a cartoon involving a playground lawyer to illustrate the point. Where Professor Katz sees a loophole, I see a flawed law. It should either be cutting allowed or no cutting allowed.
By allowing only one type of cutting, the law creates a distortion in behavior. The law can be changed and flawed laws should be changed. Besides loopholes, Professor Katz focuses on a few other "perversities. Legal systems don't punish certain kinds of highly immoral conduct while prosecuting other far less pernicious behaviors.
If you miss law school, Why the Law Is So Perverse will take you back through some of the best and some worst features of law school. Jul 16, Ari rated it liked it Recommended to Ari by: Nathaniel.
The author's claim is that a lot of the perversity in the legal system is because the legal system has to do multi-criterial decisionmaking, and that the problems of law stem from the paradoxes inherent to voting and ranking. I'm not really convinced, but I think this explains at least part of what's going on.
Published in: Business. Full Name Comment goes here. Are you sure you want to Yes No. Be the first to like this. No Downloads. Views Total views. Actions Shares. Embeds 0 No embeds. No notes for slide. Description this book Conundrums, puzzles, and perversities: these are Leo Katz s stock-in-trade, and in "Why the Law Is So Perverse", he focuses on four fundamental features of our legal system, all of which seem to not make sense on some level and to demand explanation.
Condorcet s voting cycles, Arrow s Theorem, Sen 4. Why the Law is So Perverse [PDF] Conundrums, puzzles, and perversities: these are Leo Katz s stock-in-trade, and in "Why the Law Is So Perverse", he focuses on four fundamental features of our legal system, all of which seem to not make sense on some level and to demand explanation. If you want to download this book, click link in the last page 6.
You just clipped your first slide! Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later. The new language threshold is also fundamentally undemocratic. Imagine if Australia introduced a law that prevented citizens from enrolling to vote unless they could first pass a proficiency test in English.
This would be immediately recognised as unacceptable discrimination and would almost certainly be ruled unconstitutional by the High Court. Yet the proposed English-language barrier to citizenship amounts to the same thing: because only citizens are eligible to vote, it prevents settled members of the Australian nation from exercising the franchise. Whether such measures are unconstitutional would need to be tested, but they certainly fall short of the democratic ideal of universal suffrage — which is, according to the government, one of the Australian values that defines us a nation.
If recent migrants pose a security threat to Australia, they do so regardless of whether they obtain the status of citizen, since they are already resident in Australia. It may, however, have the opposite effect if it leads some migrants to feel that they are excluded, marginalised and unwanted. Other technical measures in the proposed legislation have largely escaped attention. Children of undocumented migrants, for example, or children of asylum seekers living on a succession of temporary protection visas become citizens in their own right on their tenth birthday.
Rather than promoting increased social cohesion, increased loyalty to the Australian nation and greater adherence to Australian values, they are likely to intensify marginalisation, alienation, resentment and division. The bill fosters not unity but disunity.
It promotes neither cohesion nor a sense of belonging, instead creating division and a sense of exclusion. Topics: citizenship migration politics. Indefinitely temporary? Many international students convert to other visas after they graduate. About Support Sign up Search Search.
National Affairs. Peter Mares. Right: Exclusive club: immigration minister Peter Dutton introduces the citizenship law changes in the House of Representatives on Thursday. International Crossing the line Lesley Russell 3 October With the impeachment process under way, the flow of evidence is set to intensify.
Close Keep up to date.