The Courts and Impressions
Entertaining speculations is not something that
the courts will ever do, whether the subject at bar be accident claims or
property claims. It belies the entire tradition of the judiciary to determine
cases based purely on facts, to invite motions for reconsideration based purely
on new facts, and to prevent new readings of former cases in the lack of these.
Some people see this fact-based approach of the courts to be too restrictive and
unimaginative. They think that the courts are abusing their privilege of
arbitrating cases by applying rigidly only one standard.
These people are erroneous. In the first place, although using this approach
may be too restrictive, restrictiveness in this case is only for our collective
good. Surely, no one would deny that an interpretation based on a complete set
of facts is much better than one made based on an imperfect set of facts. Do
these people think that lies, for the sake of variety, should supplant or share
the stage with the truth? Second, as regards the charge of want of imagination,
these people should know that the courts is not the place to conjure up
fantastic and chimerical facts merely to satisfy anybody’s creative hunger. The
courts were established to elucidate the truth. If drab methods are the most
effective ways wherein they could do this, then that should not be ascribed as a
fault to them. They are just doing their jobs.
Predictability in Law
Why is it exactly that the courts do not permit
speculations to be included in judicial deliberations? For what reason can
judges restrict such meetings, whether about accident claims or not, to bare
facts? The main reason is that cases decided upon taking into account mere
speculations is tantamount to denigrating the search for truth into the search
for the most popular make-believe. The courts, if ever they are genuinely
interested in deciding cases justly, are right in refusing to take in
speculations because they are, strictly speaking, neither true nor false, and
only those which have been proven true can be talked and written about
intelligently.
Here is a practical dilemma. Suppose we were to decide right now that
speculations should have the same weight or force as a proven statement of fact.
Then what can prevent claimants or defendants from accusing each other of the
worst things they can possible conjure up, for it must be granted that man’s
imagination when once fired up and bound by no rules can stretch to endless
leaps and lengths? How can the courts transact their businesses when the first
step in judicial procedure, the statement of facts, will never be at a close?
Furthermore, how will the outcome of such a case be treated? Any way, we think,
except seriously.
Entertaining speculations is not something that
the courts will ever do, whether the subject at bar be accident claims or
property claims. It belies the entire tradition of the judiciary to determine
cases based purely on facts, to invite motions for reconsideration based purely
on new facts, and to prevent new readings of former cases in the lack of these.
Some people see this fact-based approach of the courts to be too restrictive and
unimaginative. They think that the courts are abusing their privilege of
arbitrating cases by applying rigidly only one standard.
These people are erroneous. In the first place, although using this approach
may be too restrictive, restrictiveness in this case is only for our collective
good. Surely, no one would deny that an interpretation based on a complete set
of facts is much better than one made based on an imperfect set of facts. Do
these people think that lies, for the sake of variety, should supplant or share
the stage with the truth? Second, as regards the charge of want of imagination,
these people should know that the courts is not the place to conjure up
fantastic and chimerical facts merely to satisfy anybody’s creative hunger. The
courts were established to elucidate the truth. If drab methods are the most
effective ways wherein they could do this, then that should not be ascribed as a
fault to them. They are just doing their jobs.
Predictability in Law
Why is it exactly that the courts do not permit
speculations to be included in judicial deliberations? For what reason can
judges restrict such meetings, whether about accident claims or not, to bare
facts? The main reason is that cases decided upon taking into account mere
speculations is tantamount to denigrating the search for truth into the search
for the most popular make-believe. The courts, if ever they are genuinely
interested in deciding cases justly, are right in refusing to take in
speculations because they are, strictly speaking, neither true nor false, and
only those which have been proven true can be talked and written about
intelligently.
Here is a practical dilemma. Suppose we were to decide right now that
speculations should have the same weight or force as a proven statement of fact.
Then what can prevent claimants or defendants from accusing each other of the
worst things they can possible conjure up, for it must be granted that man’s
imagination when once fired up and bound by no rules can stretch to endless
leaps and lengths? How can the courts transact their businesses when the first
step in judicial procedure, the statement of facts, will never be at a close?
Furthermore, how will the outcome of such a case be treated? Any way, we think,
except seriously.
RSS Feed