anyone know anything about hart's concept of law?
86001
H.L.A. Hart’s The Concept of Law (1961) is an analysis of the relation between law, coercion, and morality, and is an attempt to clarify the question of whether all laws may be properly conceptualized as coercive orders or as moral commands. Hart argues that there is no logically necessary connection between law and coercion or between law and morality. He explains that to classify all laws as coercive orders or as moral commands is to oversimplify the relation between law, coercion, and morality. He also explains that to conceptualize all laws as coercive orders or as moral commands is to impose a misleading appearance of uniformity on different kinds of laws and on different kinds of social functions which laws may perform. He argues that to describe all laws as coercive orders is to mischaracterize the purpose and function of some laws and is to misunderstand their content, mode of origin, and range of application.\n\nHart explains that laws are rules which may forbid individuals to perform various kinds of actions, or which may impose various obligations on individuals, or which may require individuals to undergo punishment for injuring other individuals, or which may specify how contracts are to be arranged, or which may specify how official documents are to be created, or which may specify how legislatures are to be assembled, or which may specify how courts are to function, or which may determine how new laws are to be enacted, or which may determine how old laws are to be changed. Laws may exert coercive power over individuals by imposing penalties on those individuals who do not comply with various kinds of duties or obligations. However, not all laws may be regarded as coercive orders, because some laws may confer powers or privileges on individuals without imposing duties or obligations on them.\n\nHart criticizes the concept of law which is formulated by John Austin in The Province of Jurisprudence Determined (1832) and which proposes that all laws are commands of a legally unlimited sovereign. Austin contends that all laws are coercive orders which impose duties or obligations on individuals. Hart explains, however, that laws may differ from the commands of a sovereign, in that they may apply to those individuals who enact them and not merely to other individuals. Laws may also differ from coercive orders in that they may not necessarily impose duties or obligations but may instead confer powers or privileges.\n\nHart describes laws which impose duties or obligations on individuals as 'primary rules of obligation.' In order for a system of primary rules to function effectively, secondary rules may be necessary in order to provide an authoritative statement of all the primary rules. Secondary rules may also be necessary in order to allow legislators to make changes in the primary rules if the primary rules are found to be defective or inadequate. Secondary rules may also be necessary in order to enable courts to resolve disputes over the interpretation and application of the primary rules. The secondary rules of a legal system may thus include 'rules of recognition,' 'rules of change,' and 'rules of adjudication.'\n\nIn order for the primary rules of a legal system to function effectively, the rules must be sufficiently clear and intelligible to be understood by those individuals to whom they apply. If the primary rules are not sufficiently clear or intelligible, then there may be uncertainty about the obligations which have been imposed on individuals. Vagueness or ambiguity in the secondary rules of a legal system may also cause uncertainty as to whether powers have been conferred on individuals in accordance with statutory requirements or may cause uncertainty as to whether legislators have the authority to change laws. Vagueness or ambiguity in the secondary rules of a legal system may also cause uncertainty as to whether courts have jurisdiction over disputes concerning the in
69467
Couldnt find anything about thier philosophy but I did find there website and they may be able to help you from there!\nhttp://www.co.humboldt.ca.us/hhs/socialservices/
210081
Try any of these on Amazon, always a good site to go to for books:\n\nhttp://www.amazon.com/gp/search/ref=br_ss_hs/102-2171272-4513707?search-alias=aps&keywords=Fundamentals%20of%20Law%20Enforcement%20Management
1174115
If you mean "where do laws come from", the answer is philosophy. Most of our laws (the ones that make sense, anyway), are derived from great philosophers.  The greeks gave us trial by jury.  "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" was given to us partly by John Locke (originally "life, liberty, and property).  Take a look at deontological ethics, and you'll find some familiar concepts.\n\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontology
1022218
Unjust Laws\n\n\n\nBy Nick D’Aigle\n\n \n\n            Are we morally obliged to obey even unjust laws? Think about what this means. This means that laws, regardless of how unfair, unjust, or immoral they may be, must be followed with no better reason that they are the law. To the thesis that we are obliged to obey even unjust laws, I will argue that the standard objections to Civil Disobedience, given by Singer, are incorrect \n\n            To begin, however, I believe it is necessary to define an “unjust” law. According to St. Thomas Aquinas, “Any law that uplifts human personality is just. Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” (King, 3) According to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., “An unjust law is a code that a numerical or power majority compels a minority group to obey, but does not make binding on itself.” (King, 4)\n\n            The definition I will take is a combination of these two. I define an unjust law as one that degrades human personality through the unfair suffering of a minority group at the hands of a majority group. Keep in mind that a majority can be in either power or number. A majority in number can be oppressed by a majority in power. Any law that causes a person to suffer simply because they do not agree with this majority is an incorrect and unjust law. \n\n            Singer gives two typical arguments in favor of obeying these unjust laws. I will address these arguments one at a time. The first argument says that, “By disobeying [a law] I set an example for others that may lead them to disobey too. The effect may multiply and contribute to a decline in law and order. In an extreme case, it may lead to civil war.” (Singer, 297)\n\n            I believe that, while this argument has a little merit, it is an extremely exaggerated slippery slope. It is true that people may join in disobedience, but if the law is unjust and is disobeyed within the guidelines I put forth later, people joining the disobedience would be a good thing. It would show the support of a strong minority, and may even help the minority to become a majority.\n\n            The second standard objection says, “If the law is to be effective – outside the anarchist’s utopia – there must be some machinery for detecting and penalizing lawbreakers. This machinery will cost something to maintain and operate, and the cost will have to be met by the community. If I break the law, the community will be put to the expense of enforcement.” (Singer, 297)\n\n            I will concede this point. There is no argument against it. I would, however, pose that the moral cost of obeying a law that one thinks is deplorable is higher than the cost of enforcing the law. I would remind you that mass genocide of non-Aryan races under Hitler was legal. Would we chastise someone for disobeying that law? Also, realistically, the cost is not very high per taxpayer. It is especially small when compared to the cost of morally compromising the entire society. This argument can be put down by a simple Utilitarian argument. The cost of maintaining and using an active police force is less than the cost of maintaining a morally compromised society. We are morally obliged to fix the problem. To continue along this train of thought, maybe putting taxpayers to the added burden will help the cause. Taxpayers will get tired of paying for the higher cost of enforcement of the unjust law, and will also begin to fight it. \n            Socrates argued for disobeying unjust laws. His argument has special meaning, for he was set to die two or three days after this conversation with the student Crito. Socrates was put to death on a trumped up charge of impiety (meaning sin). Plato wrote of the conversation between Socrates and Crito in the dialogue The Crito. \n\nCrito had come to Socrates to try to convince him to escape. Socrates first said, “One must never do injustice. Nor return injustice for injustice, as the multitude think, sinc
370638
yes, it's a great work in the tradition of social contract theory. you should also read his book Political Liberalism.
861578
It is a law which rather than setting out absolute principles contains a series of principles to be followed in certain conditions.  For example, the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 places a general duty on employers  'so far as is reasonably practicable' to protect the health, safety and welfare at work of all employees.  There is clearly a degree of flexibility to deal with individual circumstances.
134524
Truth and honour, freedom and courtesy\n\nDo you have the book?  It says RIGHT THERE in line 46!\n\nDo your own homework!
1168747
I agree with Pandak, all except for one thing.  Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness were the  inalienable rights described to us in the Declaration of Independence by our forefathers.  John Locke (not the character from "Lost", the theorist) theroized that we have only three natural rightas (inalienable rights).  The right to Life, Liberty, and Property.  The Pursuit of Happiness was not one of the three.  \n\nBut on all other counts, I agree with all of his other points.
664995
actually, American law is based on English Common law.\n\nThe Bill of Rights are drawn from several sources including the Magna Carta, not just from the 10 commandments.
752766
I haven't followed this political case, but I believe that any law named after a person is questionable since those pusing it will often be reacting based on emotion and grief, rather than reason.\n\nAny good law will have safeguards, and rational provisions so that whatever action is made illegal is really the action that is the threat. I generally oppose laws that make actions illegal just because they might, in combination with other actions, have the potential to cause harm. I believe in punishing those who cause the harm, and not limiting action based purely on speculation.\n\nThat being said, the voting process has become an emotional one. People -- whether voters or legislators -- pass laws based on their gut reactions, often without any concern for the consequences or long term effects. Logic and reason have largely been abandoned in favor of making headlines.\n\nAnd sadly, that's not likely to change any time soon. Good luck.
340373
I'm guessing here, but I think he may be referring to the Christian idea of the "old covenant" in the Tanakh, and the "new covenant" of the New Testament. Two laws.\nOn a side note I find his Q&A fascinating. When he's on, he comes up with some really clever stanzas. Seems a little out there quite often, but he truly has the soul of a poet.
6202
The sociology of law is the study of everything about the law that is not its actual text. Let me explain: when most people think of law, they think of the written down rules that government makes, courts decide, and police and regulatory agencies enforce. One way of looking at law is that it is a set of rules that courts and police impose on people. This is not completely how sociologists understand it, though. What sociologists of law do is to take a broader picture of the social and political processes that surround the relationship between law and society. Some questions they have asked is: what is the function of law in society? How do laws get made and who do they benefit? Under what conditions do people obey law and when and why do they evade it? When people in social movements litigate, does it help their cause? Why do people decide to litigate and when do they resolve their conflicts in other ways? What is the role of lawyers in shaping the trajectory of disputes? What do people think law is? How does the understanding people have about law shape how they understand their rights, the actions they can take, and what their relationships to other people are? \n\nWeber, Durkheim, and Parsons (major sociologists) were all interested in understanding the relationship between law and society. Though the soc of law is a subfield of sociology, it is more foundational to the works of major theorists than many mainstream sociologists seem to recognize. \n\nIf you want to get an overview of this field, three textbooks may be helpful: *Connecting Law and Society* by Robert L. Kidder, *Law, Order, and Power* by William J. Chambliss and Robert Seidman, and *The Sociology of Law: An Introduction* by Roger Cotterrell. Also, some major articles are contained in a reader edited by Richard L. Abel called *The Law and Society Reader*. If you have access to a university library, you should check out the journals *Law and Society Review* and *Annual Review of Law and Social Science*.\n\nOther notable sociologists of law include Marc Galanter, Lauren Edelman, Robert C. Ellickson, Stewart Macaulay, Susan Silbey, Patricia Ewick, Austin Sarat, Kim Lane Scheppele, and Philip Selznick. This is an abbreviated list and is by no means comprehensive, but it should get you started.
746750
Hi Amy, not sure what the previous post was about, but it was clearly uncalled for.\n\nAs a lawyer who has seen the movie (albeit a while back) I am sure there are many issues you could raise.  This is all just sort of stream of consciousness off the top of my head, so I apologize if it's not too organized, but here are a few thoughts.\n\n1)  It seems to me that much of the protagonist's (I've forgotten his name) actions are designed at misleading others.  If he does this for his own material gain he may be comitting fraud (for example, doesn't he mislead the former Marlboro man into accepting a cash settlement of some sort-?--that could be a fraudulent inducement into a contract).\n2)You also might want to look into whether or not there are any applicable lobbying laws he violates.\n3)  Are there laws against "pushing"cigarettes to minors (I'm thinking of the little classroom lecture he gives) or something similar.\n\nThe best way to do legal research for applicable cases or statutes is using lexis nexis or Westlaw.  To the unitiated these databases can be daunting, but if you are at a large university you may be able to get access at the law library.  Failing that, you might want to go to a local law library and ask the librarian for help (call ahead and explain the situation to clear access ahead of time).  Yet another option is to check out www.findlaw.com, which generally provides access to cases and articles free of charge, but is no where near as sophisticated as Lexis or Westlaw.  Finally, you might call your state bar association's relevant sub group or a Washington Lobbying or ethics organization (I do not know but suspect there are several) and see if they have any suggestions.  Research is about getting your hands dirty and hitting dead ends until something clicks into place.  Good luck!
216746
Definitions of law on the Web:\n\nlegal document setting forth rules governing a particular kind of activity; "there is a law against kidnapping" \nthe collection of rules imposed by authority; "civilization presupposes respect for the law"; "the great problem for jurisprudence to allow freedom while enforcing order" \na generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics" \na rule or body of rules of conduct inherent in human nature and essential to or binding upon human society \nthe learned profession that is mastered by graduate study in a law school and that is responsible for the judicial system; "he studied law at Yale" \npolice: the force of policemen and officers; "the law came looking for him" \njurisprudence: the branch of philosophy concerned with the law and the principles that lead courts to make the decisions they do \nwordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn\n\nLaw (a loanword from Old Norse lag), in politics and jurisprudence, is a set of rules or norms of conduct which mandate, proscribe or permit specified relationships among people and organizations, provide methods for ensuring the impartial treatment of such people, and provide punishments for those who do not follow the established rules of conduct. \nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law\n\nLAW may stand for: *LAW stands for Lightweight Anti-tank Weapon. Examples of such weapons are M72 LAW (US Army) and LAW 80 (British Army)*LAW is a law society called Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights*LAW is also the League of American Wheelmen. \nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAW\n\nThe M72 LAAW (Light Anti-Armor Weapon) sometimes knowns as a LAW, is a portable one-shot 66 mm anti-tank weapon, made in United States by Talley Defense Systems. \nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAW_(weapon)\n\nWhile Law is a part of society, the academic study of law, both as a science, that is, jurisprudence, and by students preparing to be lawyers is taught in the United States at specialized postgraduate law schools. In other countries the course of study is different, for example, in England, prospective lawyers simply major in law as an undergraduate, or take a special one year course in law (the Common Professional Exam) after having majored in some other discipline. \nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(academic)\n\nThe term law is often used to refer to universal principles that describe the fundamental nature of something, to universal properties and relationships between things, or to descriptions that purport to explain these principles and relationships. For example, "physical law"s, or "scientific laws" attempt to describe the fundamental nature of the universe itself. Laws of mathematics and logic describe the nature of rational thought and inference. ...\nen.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_(principle)\n\nA statement, usually mathematical, which describes some physical phenomena. Compare: hypothesis and theory.\nwww.physlink.com/Reference/Glossary.cfm\n\nThe combination of those rules and principles of conduct promulgated by legislative authority, derived from court decisions and established by local custom.\ncourts.delaware.gov/How%20To/court%20proceedings/\n\nThe rules governing our daily lives.\nwww.dmh.cahwnet.gov/Admin/regulations/glossary.asp\n\nThese conditions and all other express terms of contract shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of England.\nwww.petewilkins.net/terms-and-conditions/index.asp\n\nThis Contract shall be governed by English Law and subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the English Courts.\nwww.citrusproduction.co.uk/terms_suppliers.htm\n\nThe rules of conduct established and enforced by authority, legislation or custom of a given community, state or other group; any one of such rules.\nwww.faststart.state.ri.us/bfs_glossary.html\n\nAll disputes arising out of or in connection with this contract shall be determined and governed by
646019
Not a website, but there is an EXCELLENT book called "Law 101" by Richard Feinman. You can order it through Amazon. It is an excellent book.
1028878
We all know laws are written vaugely & that they are so long & complex that reading one in full would probably kill more brain cells than main lining tequila. Sometimes they're vauge on purpose... meaning they can be interpreted situation to situation as appropriate, but still I know what you mean. If you have some proposal for more common sense in government I'd be happy to hear it.