[FRIAM] anthropological observations

[Prof David West]

Two points:

1) We do fetishize the law in the sense that if you run the red light and the cop gives you a ticket there is no possible defense - you ARE guilty. In the medical case, if you prescribe off-label and get sued, you will lose. (Unless, of course, the Judge Interprets the law , or the jury Nullifies the law.)

2) There are always ways to ameliorate the Absolute Law. Those ways differ by culture. Edward Hall compared how and where amelioration differs between US and Mexican cultures. In the US the cop has latitude as to when and with what to cite you, in Mexico it is the judge that has the discretion. A Mexico born and raised man was appointed traffic officer in a small US town and cited people for going 1-2 miles above the speed limit. Anger and violence ensued. Americans cited for traffic offenses in Mexico were enraged when they went to court and saw the judge dismiss cases against relatives and friends of the judge while being held guilty.

Using law and traffic signals to advance an argument followed Nick's lead, but the underlying personal opinion might more accurately be stated as: in the US culture, Cecelia Citizen, is infantalized, assumed to be incapable of informed judgement and swaddled in layer upon layer of absolutely stated "law" to which her behavior must conform. This is true even for Penelope Physician.

davew

On Tue, Apr 14, 2020, at 12:10 PM, uǝlƃ ☣ wrote:
> My experience is that the cops have a LOT of preferential enforcement 
> power. And my black friends seem to agree (inverse experiences). And 
> it's not clear to me that this selective enforcement stops at the 
> sheriffs and beat cop layer. I think many places have the leeway to 
> "decriminalize" things like low volume marijuana possession up to 
> federal attorneys general choosing not to focus on some categories like 
> RICO or whatever.
> 
> As our SCOTUS demonstrates on a regular basis, despite being a country 
> of laws, the interpretation of such laws is convoluted at best. We may 
> *think* we fetishize the law, but it's delusional because a law isn't a 
> law until it's challenged in court. And even then, it's subject to 
> revision later ... depending on how many beers Brett Kavanaugh had last 
> night.
> 
> On 4/14/20 9:41 AM, Prof David West wrote:
> > Venturing an opinion —
> > 
> > The State put a traffic signal at an intersection because (anthropomorphizing here) The State determined that a number of factors (sight lines, traffic volume, ...) made it advisable to regulate the flow of traffic.
> > 
> > The State also made an assumption about the typical driver — they are incapable of making an evaluative decision with regard all those factors and therefore their behavior must be controlled by mandating stopping at a red light.
> > 
> > The State also makes the assumption that the average highway patrol person either lacks the right (only judges may interpret the law) or the capability to decide if issuing a ticket at 3 am is reasonable. The Law is the Law. This is Fetishizing the Law.
> > 
> > In the case of the traffic signal, the assumptions made about typical drivers and highway patrol persons are probably not unreasonable.
> > 
> > In the case of off-label meds, it would seem much more reasonable to assume that the typical physician IS capable of making an evaluative decision and should therefore be supplied with as much information as possible in support of that decision. This is what I believe I observed in Europe.
> > 
> > In contrast, what I believe I am seeing in the US response nothing more than "The Law Is The Law."
> 
> -- 
> ☣ uǝlƃ
> 
> .-. .- -. -.. --- -- -..-. -.. --- - ... -..-. .- -. -.. -..-. -.. .- 
> ... .... . ...
> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
> Zoom Fridays 9:30a-12p Mtn GMT-6  bit.ly/virtualfriam
> unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
> archives: http://friam.471366.n2.nabble.com/
> FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ 
>