AGI          The Law is an Ass            (17 Dec 2006)

I think every lawyer would agree with that rather crude appellation.  I believe that this statement comes about because of the way British Law is structured.  Government do not trust anyone but themselves to use common sense.  Just look at the way that local councils are tied down by Westminster's edicts.  Also, the nitpicking detail that forms so much of British Law, means that clever lawyers are able to find technical minutiae in order to show that the accused person is NOT GUILTY of the offence so charged.  Beside that is the enormous waste of trained manpower (& I include women, so not to be accused of sexism) used drafting charges against the, assumed, guilty person.  Not only doesn't the government trust councils, it doesn't trust judges either.

I'd like to hear a reasoned argument against the following way of dealing with Law and Order.  It reckon it would take about five years to get my system up and running, but the way that Blair and Co throw money around, I think this would be a useful form of expenditure, as against forcing people to do what they don't want to do, and setting rules that forbid Councillors from arguing in Chamber on behalf of the people who elected them.

My system would have parliament draw up a set of guidelines and allow the judges to make the sentence (if any) according to their own judgement.  Existing legislation would fall to the level of a guideline.  There would, of course, be an Appeal Court to curb any excesses in either direction.  Much of the Law we have at present would see no change, but there would not need to be such a welter of paper coming out of Whitehall.  As conditions and technology change, so would the rulings that come down from the Courts  The only area I see that Parliament would need to interfere with the running of the Courts, is each year when a new Finance Act was passed.  Judges do not have the training or time to absorb the ins and outs of National Finance as it is in a state of permanent flux.

However, I can't see my idea being accepted.  A large number of MPs are lawyers, and my system would put a lot of them out of work.  And the Law Professors at universities would find that their subject suddenly ceased to exist.  Common sense would once again rule.  But Common Sense is what governments are not renowned for.

Should this idea get seriously mooted, the wreckers would argue that the same crime would attract different penalties in different places.  But is this a bad thing?  It happens now, and the wreckers don't shout and scream at one set of magistrates who impose certain fine for certain road speeds, whereas another Bench imposes a different level of fine.  Law Reports could be part of the guidelines that Courts are required to consider.

I am still awaiting someone to come up with a reasoned argument as to why my theory is not practical.