Legal Hypocrisy: Strike 2

addendum no. 2

The justices and our top prosecutors proudly solve the cases of ordinary men; but they seldom solve the murders of judges, prosecutors and lawyers. This is a specie of hypocrisy because they are giving to somebody which they could not give to themselves. The trial shows for the ordinary men were considered as the theatres of grand standing lawyers showing their best neck-ties and cuffs purposely reserved for public audience.

addendum no. 3

The use of Latin phrases in legal language creates the pretension that Latin is something which involves brilliance. The Latin words and terms are often displayed to impress the public that they possessed special knowledge and inaccessible learnings such that the client may give more incentives and the public viewers may applaud for. This is hypocrisy because the dead language became a curtain to conceal the simple knowledge and have it appeared as if it is a very-difficult-to-understand-principle.

addendum no. 4

The patent language of hypocrisy is reflected in the legal axiom which says: “It is better to free one hundred convicted criminals than to send one innocent man to jail.” Of course we know its essence and we knew that it is a figurative language which is naturally unrealistic, therefore, another hypocrisy. Besides, it is always the case whereby an innocent man is sent to jail.

addendum no. 5

The legal principle that “No one is above the law” is another words of hypocrisy. We are aware that the Justices of the Supreme Court cannot be disbarred because of the reason that they can ONLY be removed from office by IMPEACHMENT and not by disbarment. The basis for disbarment is moral turpitude, and moral turpitude is not a ground for impeachment. The legal principle that “no one is above the law” does not or cannot be applied to the justices of the supreme court because they enjoyed a lot of judicial privileges in the guise of interpretation which will blanket them from legal liabilities. The justices that declares “no one is above the law” is himself “above the law”. Besides, the law is what the justices said, it is not the law when he said it is not and it is the law when he said it is.

addendum no. 6

“Justice delayed is justice denied” is one of the ancient legal norms. They pretend to be the medium of justice; they “hate” delayed justice but they delayed justice in the name of due process of the law. Some cases may even reach  20-30 years and some may even be archived and left unresolved. HYPOCRITES OF LAWS will now replace the Bachelor of Laws.

addendum no. 7

In the law books, legal ethics and principles of legal profession, it is always emphasized that legal profession is NOT a money making enterprise. It is NOT a business but a “dignified” profession. Only a dumb and ignorant being from the other planet may be convinced by this hypocrisy. This hypocrisy is very patent. From the time a person asks a question, there is the “consultation fee”; a case is referred, there is the “professional fee”; the case is accepted, there is the “acceptance fee”; in representing in court, there is the “appearance fee”, and many more fees. Now, is this not a money making profession? What happened to the teachings which is still in the textbooks  and in the law school which says a different version? HYPOCRISY becomes the professional images of the legal practitioners.

MODERN ETHICS – MODERN PROBLEM: CRITICISM

The tales of human circumstances, tragedy, war,  love, politics and religion has been a common venue of human history. Perhaps, problems are always included in every human life; and some problems would involve ethical issues that which could only be resolved through the existing ethical standards.

But by what means this so-called ethical standards attained its reliability? It is a fact that there are instances in our law wherein some forms of killings are not considered as crime such as the justifying and exempting circumstances in our penal law books.

Also, there is an instance whereby a professional killer or whose occupation is to kill a person is not ethically sanctioned by the society, example of which is an executioner of verdict.

So, how reliable is the ethical standard? Who determines the suspension of morality towards brutality and hostility during a war? War losers are always the victim of persecution.

To remember some incidents of our history, the deaths of innocent lives during the Vietnam War was termed by the American government as “Collateral Damage”; and in the World War II, the Nazis called the death of 6 million Jews as the “Necessary Evil”.

In my honest opinion, the term “ethics” and “morals” were just a semantic interplay for “human will”. It is natural in human behavior to maintain silence when the unpleasant event does not affect our interests or to tolerate unpleasant situations when it brings us favorable benefits. There are parents, to exemplify, who kept silent on the “immoral” acts of prostitution of their daughter on the reason of benefits caused thereby.

Now, what is ethics? What is moral? Who declares what it is? And what authority shall make it binding?

Indeed, it is a funny tale, human fears – worries – concerns crafted the term “ethics”, “morality”, “sin”, and “retribution” as a mechanism of our godly attitude.

One significant feature that man behaves like god is the maxim “vox populi, vox dei”, whereby, he invented a more or less godly concepts of ethics and morality with a more or less godly authority. Defining ethics and morality is an attempt to unmask man from his godly appearance.

Besides, ethics and morality are matters within the property of reason. Without the reason, no one can assert the reliability of the standard.

To supplement this criticism, let us observe the gesture of this statement:

Inflicting injury to a person or killing him is justified or morally acceptable when it is made IN THE NAME OF PEACE, IN THE NAME OF GOD, IN THE NAME OF JUSTICE, IN THE NAME OF THE LAW, or IN THE NAME OF A JUST and DIGNIFIED CAUSE.

The statement herein mentioned is a clear and explicit proof of human manipulation on the so-called ethics and morality to fit his particular purpose… and to note, it has been proven a long way back to the ancient history of man.

THE LEGAL HYPOCRISY

Unavoidably, we have a lot of hypocrisy in our legal system. Hypocrisy which always deceived laymen and ordinary citizens.

We have what we call Null and Void marriage, a marriage which does not exist from the very beginning. That is the hypocrisy no.1

We have the Presumption of Innocenceof an accused until his guilt is proved beyond reasonable doubt. The accused who is presumed innocent may be convicted if he failed to object the admission of a particular question or an evidence. This is the hypocrisy no.2

The usage of a third person, like the undersigned counsel, the affiant, etc. were indicators of departing from themselves to sound as if they were separate entities from the real person. This is hypocrisy no.3

The personification of the court, like “this Court rejects that motion” “the Law does not allow that“. In the legal construction, the law is just a matter of interpretation and concept by its enforcers; but the interpreters and enforcers of law would distance themselves from the concept to appear as if they were separate from the court or the law. This is hypocrisy no.4

Final Decisions based on guilt beyond reasonable doubt is definitely a word of the hypocrites knowing well that it is still appealable before a higher tribunal. No.5

Many more countless hypocrisies in our legal systems which we conveniently lived with.

Hypocrites did not only live in our churches but also in our courts.

Addendum no.1 — The hypocrisy number 6. The lawyers will object on the hearsay testimonies; likewise, the judges will not allow these hearsay testimonies [general rule with exceptions]. However, they happily receive all details from their client and other sources on matters regarding with complaints and statements conveyed to them by witnesses and other third parties. They lived by hearsays, profited therefrom and became rich because of hearsay BUT in court they will proudly say it is hearsay and therefore INADMISSIBLE.