In society shouldn't all people understand the laws of the land like the lawyers and judges? ?

Question

To have it an advance language makes no sense. Most of us in the USA are High School graduates or less. I understand the language for Doctors. But I think the law should be for all of us. WE the people!

Answer 1

The reason that certain "specific" terms and phrases are used in the law is that those terms and phrases have had their PRECISE meaning defined and clarified over decades - even centuries - as they've been argued about.

When a law, for example, says that a cop must have "probable cause" to believe that a crime has been committed before he's allowed to arrest you, that's because the term "probable cause" has been argued and debated a hundred times in different court cases, and it's meaning is now precisely defined.

If a law is vague or ambiguous it will be struck down as invalid. Congress (or the State legislatures) must therefore be precise in writing it. That precision calls for the use of precise terms.

The language is not, really, that complex. Anyone with a high school diploma should have no problem understanding the laws as written. The exceptions are complex laws governing complex issues. The laws, for example, governing the tax code, are complex because the tax code itself is complex.

EXAMPLE....  Here is the California law prohibiting rape. It's perfectly capable of being understood by anyone with a working knowledge of English. It's hard to see how it could be much shortened or simplified without leaving the situation where a rape defendant could say as a defense "What I did wasn't really rape." A large part of the language is, in fact, defining *exactly* what terms like "rape" or "duress" or "menace" mean within the context of the law.  

261. (a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:

(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.

(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.

(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.

(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:

(A) Was unconscious or asleep.

(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.

(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.

(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.

(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.

(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, "threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.

(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.

(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.

(c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.

Richard

Answer 2

Are you saying you don't understand the law?  Some of them were written a few hundred years ago.  Have you ever looked through Black's Law Dictionary?  That can provide you with definitions.

And it's not in an "advance[d] language".  Laws are written in English in the U.S.  Which law don't you understand?  Maybe someone can help you?

Answer 3

shouldn't people finish high school and go to college - i mean we have no need for stupid people - right.  not even a question - more like a statement or opinion.

Answer 4

The last thing that Congress wants is to make laws without vague, indeterminate language.  And wanting everyone to understand the law like lawyers is less than worthless.  The highest level people working in law in the US (Supreme Court) don't even have a solid record of backing up the most basic and highest law in America (The Constitution).  What the law says doesn't really matter, it's all in what a government/judge/law enforcement agency/etc wants to interpret is as.  

Answer 5

It would be up to that person to want to learn about it on their own.  It is available for any one to read about and ask questions about.  Being ignorant of things is not an excuse.  Most ppl are just too lazy to want to learn

Answer 6

Some things cannot be explained easily.  Yes, it should be made more clear though.  People who do not understand their rights get screwed.

Answer 7

All of those incredibly cruel "high school" kids who age into adults (notice I didn't say mature) would then have you at their mercy.

That's not justice, that's mob rule.

Get an education = you're better off. Everyone does or should understand that.

O and the law is complex because life is complex.

"Theft is illegal." = not a good law. Why? Because what exactly does theft mean?

If the city is tearing up old slate sidewalks and people would like some of the old slate to use as landscaping in their gardens, can they take it.

Point of view A.) Yup, it's theft. It's the city's sidewalk and you took for whatever reason... 5 years in jail

Point of view B.) Nope, it's abandoned property. The city would have had to haul it out of there anyhow: you saved them the effort. Anyhow, to steal something there has to be an owner to steal from: who exactly owns a sidewalk: the city or the property owner whose house it crosses? Also does their intention matter? What if they asked the contractor and the construction crews for permission and they said yes? Still a crime (this really happened in my city...)

Here is your problem in a nutshell:

a.) People are not reasonable; they will s***w you over in a second and you know I'm right. Imagine if those people had control of the laws....

b.) You think that the "simplistic law" theory would produce laws you like.

Point: Law is and always will be a complex thing. You can't have people with a "high school or less" education running a complex thing like that. They will s***w it up and be completely unfair without a bit of reasoning behind it.

"Because I feel like it" would be the reason they made anything a law. That's not good enough to send someone to jail... or kill them.