Dear all,
as prof. Conte suggested, I am writing this post in order to give you the opportunity to quote on the blog the most intersting judicial opinions according to a "law as literature" point of view. You can ask your professors, collegues and friends and try to find a judgement that reflects one or more qualities discussed during the class (e.g. in the opinion both parties are taken into account according to J. Boyd White's standards, or the writing has a powerful rethoric, etc.). You can quote also using other languages. In this case try at least to describe the writing a bit.Let's start!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteit's really hard to find in our judicial system some opinion with this peculiarities. I'm looking on the web and asking around but without good results. However i think that in our sytem the most literal(?)opinions are the Costitutional Court's opinions, in particular when the argument is really important. I put here a fragment of the opinion which declares for the first time the principle of secularism(?): "I valori richiamati concorrono(..) a strutturare il principio supremo della laicità dello Stato, che è uno dei profili della forma di Stato delineata nella Carta costituzionale della Repubblica. Il principio di laicità(..) implica non indifferenza dello Stato dinanzi alle religioni ma garanzia dello Stato per la salvaguardia della libertà di religione, in regime di pluralismo confessionale e culturale."
ReplyDeleteThese are some excerpts from the judgement which took place on the 22th june of 1633 in Rome, where the scientist Galileo Galilei was accused for his 'heretical theories' about the solar system.
ReplyDeleteI found very unique, strong and effective the language used by the Catholic Church to stress the fact that the ideas of Galilei were against the Sacred Scripture and that's why they had to be considered absurd and false.
So as we have seen today with the very passionate,personal and emotional style from the judicial opinion of judge Bluckmun, we can see how in a very different historical context such a strong and passionate language could actually reach a very different and bad result for the community.
In this judgement we can clearly see that the ideal of James Boyde White is not observed. The position of the great astronomer is absolutely not engaged, it was not even considered as possible but simply condemned and insulted for beeing against the “catholic truth”.
“Sentenza del Santo Uffizio contro Galileo Galilei.”
“…Che il Sole sia centro del mondo e imobile di moto locale, è proposizione assurda e falsa in filosofìa, e formalmente eretica, per essere espressamente contraria alla Sacra Scrittura;
Che la terra non sia centro del mondo ne imobile, ma che si muova eziandio di moto diurno, è parimente proposizione assurda e falsa nella filosofia, e considerata in teologia ad minus erronea in Fide…”
“…E acciò che si togliesse affatto così perniciosa dottrina, e non andasse più oltre serpendo in grave pregiudizio della Cattolica verità, uscì decreto della Sacra Congr.ne dell'Indice col quale fumo proibiti li libri che trattano di tal dottrina, e essa dichiarata falsa e omninamente contraria alla Sacra e divina Scrittura…”
“…Diciamo, pronunziamo, sentenziarne e dichiararne che tu, Galileo sudetto, per le cose dedotte in processo e da te confessate come sopra, ti sei reso a questo S. Off.o veementemente sospetto d'eresia, cioè d'aver tenuto e creduto dottrina falsa e contraria alle Sacre e divine Scritture, ch'il sole sia centro della terra e che non si muova da oriente ad occidente, e che la terra si muova e non sia centro del mondo, e che si possa tener e difendere per probabile un'opinione dopo esser stata dichiarata e diffinita per contraria alla Sacra Scrittura; e conseguentemente sei incorso in tutte le censure e pene dai sacri canoni e altre constituzioni generali e particolari contro simili delinquenti imposte e promulgate. Dalle quali siamo contenti sii assoluto, pur che prima, con cuor sincero e fede non fìnta, avanti di noi abiuri, maledichi e detesti li sudetti errori e eresie, e qualunque altro errore e eresia contraria alla Cattolica e Apostolica Chiesa, nel modo e forma che da noi ti sarà data…”
Very good indeed!
ReplyDelete381 U.S. 479
ReplyDeleteGriswold v. Connecticut
In 1965 case Griswold v. Connecticut, Supreme Court ruled that government had no right to prevent married couples from using contraceptives and that the contraceptive ban violated "right to marital privacy". Supreme Court was asked to consider a Connecticut law that forbade discussion, distribution, and the use of contraceptives; the case was prompted by the arrest of the director of a Planned Parenthood clinic for providing contraceptive literature and counseling. By a vote of 7–2, the Supreme Court invalidated the law because it violated a "right to marital privacy," but the justices disagreed on the extent and of this right.
Justice William Douglas, who wrote the decision, argued that from the guarantees of the Bill of Rights a number of others could be deduced; he suggested that they were contained within the "penumbras" existing along the edges of the Bill of Rights. These penumbras were "formed by emanations from those guarantees that help give them life and substance."
The following is an extract from the court’s decision:
“The present case, then, concerns a relationship lying within the zone of privacy created by several fundamental constitutional guarantees. And it concerns a law which, in forbidding the use of contraceptives, rather than regulating their manufacture or sale, seeks to achieve its goals by means having a maximum destructive impact upon that relationship. Such a law cannot stand in light of the familiar principle, so often applied by this Court, that a
“governmental purpose to control or prevent activities constitutionally subject to state regulation may not be achieved by means which sweep unnecessarily broadly and thereby invade the area of protected freedoms.”
NAACP v. Alabama, 377 U.S. 288, 307. Would we allow the police to search the sacred precincts of marital bedrooms for telltale signs of the use of contraceptives? The very idea is repulsive to the notions of privacy surrounding the marriage relationship.
We deal with a right of privacy older than the Bill of Rights -- older than our political parties, older than our school system. Marriage is a coming together for better or for worse, hopefully enduring, and intimate to the degree of being sacred. It is an association that promotes a way of life, not causes; a harmony in living, not political faiths; a bilateral loyalty, not commercial or social projects. Yet it is an association for as noble a purpose as any involved in our prior decisions.”
I wouldn’t say that Justice William Douglas uses a neutral language, delivering his opinion, but rather a subjective one. He makes it clear how the right to privacy (even if the Bill of Rights doesn’t explicitly talk of "privacy") should nonetheless be granted. Douglass argues that it is inconceivable that the government would have some role in the private decision of childbearing, using a very clean strong and direct language, understandable by everyone. Defining repulsive the threat that the government would interfere with the private choice of using contraceptives, leaves no doubt on Douglas’ belief. To me Douglas is expressly being “crystalline”, he’s aware of the words used and makes sure they are the most effective possible.
Maybe a recent example of judicial opinions according to a "law as literature" point of view could be represented by the dramatic and painful case of Eluana Englaro.What is shown, is the problem of euthanasia,in the moral and juridic aspect.This case represents in Italy an exceptional sentence,in which, we can find a judgment about the decision to put an end to human life,probably against moral,religious and costitutional principles like art. 32 or 13 Cost.I think human life is sacred and untouchable,even in those conditions.
ReplyDeleteDecreto Corte d'Appello di Milano 9 luglio 2008. normativa correlata Sentenza Corte di Cassazione n.21748/2007
"... risulta che Eluana dava un peso preminente sia alla possibilità di muoversi liberamente ed autonomamente, sia di esprimere una volontà cosciente interagendo con il mondo attraverso le sue facoltà intellettive-percettive-cognitive. Tali facoltà, in sostanza, erano da lei viste come i soli strumenti capaci di dare senso alla vita..."
"Si tratta di una concezione personale, ma certo non rara, e comunque non nuova, essendo anzi un antico portato della stessa scienza medica : «E l’uomo deve sapere che soltanto dal cervello derivano le gioie e i piaceri e la serenità e il riso e lo scherzo, e le tristezze, i dolori, l’avvilimento e il pianto. E per merito suo acquisiamo saggezza e conoscenza, e vediamo e sentiamo e giudichiamo e impariamo cos’è giusto e cos’è sbagliato, cos’ è dolce e cos’ è amaro…» (Ippocrate, “Sulla malattia sacra”, 400 circa A.C.)..."
"Può ritenersi dunque che, effettivamente, per Eluana sarebbe stato inconcepibile vivere senza essere cosciente, senza essere capace di avere esperienze e contatti con gli altri..."
"Sarebbe davvero poco coerente con la realtà dei fatti non riconoscere che le indicazioni testimoniali su questo punto sono di una tale chiarezza, univocità, concordanza e ricchezza di dettagli da non poter dare adito a dubbi."
"Non potrebbe poi essere più toccante, e densa di significato ai fini del decidere, la plastica e vivida immagine di Eluana che accende un cero pregando per…la morte del suo amico rimasto paralizzato a causa di un incidente stradale, senza aver nemmeno ipotizzato che potesse essere preferibile per lui la diversa soluzione di vivere in condizioni di assoluta menomazione"
Regards
Benedetto Loris Gaudino
I think that a “poetic judgement” is extremely rare in our modern european system, except, maybe, the example of the UK. The reason of this situation is that in France, Italy and Germany, judges search a positive rule first, then apply it to the case, not vice versa. This thinking method of law scholars and judges in this countries is strictly deductive, the exact opposite of the UK and USA point of view, that is to say a inductive method, which starts from the analysis of the case, of his qualifying aspects, to arrive to choose the better law rule or principle to resolve it.
Deletewe have also to know that the judgements textual genre and language is never homogeneus: his style and structure depends on many variables, which involve the history of a judicial system, his cultural background, but also his consideration of the role of judges in the law sistem.
we can look, as example, to the French judicial system, in which judgements are always short, impersonal, logical and highly technical. Even the judgements of the french Cour de Cassation are very short and brief, and there’s no space for personal consideration of judges. A french judgement starts with the individuation of the positive law rule (“Vu l’article…”), then continues with the exposition of the reasons (“attendu que..”), and ends with the final part which contains the decision (“par ce motifs”). We have to notice that judgements of the Cour de Cassation are always extremely short, often one or two pages, and it’s possible that the motivation of the decision is very concise, or misses at all. other important aspect is that french judges never expose their thinkings and considerations about social or political purpose of law rules, because are aspects reservated to the Parliament (“arguments d’opportunitè”).
Lucio Maria Lanzetti
I agree with Lorenzo's opinion: it's really hard to find personal judgments in european civil law systems, because continental judges base their decisions first of all on pre-determinated statues and they are bound by codificated rules, so the space for subjectivity is necessarily limitated. In our system judges use an unpersonal, formal and technical language to motivate their decisions, and they never use the first person, so for me it was really interesting to see how judge Bluckmun uses such a different language, so highly personal, pationate and dramatic.
ReplyDeleteI found out two interesting examples of judgments that reflect the particular style used by american Courts, in order to strengthen their decisions they use literary and even musical quotations:
- In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal co. case (1990) the US Supreme Court quotes William Shakespeare's Othello, in order to reject an expansive view (trended in the lower courts) of the first amendment that allowed peaple to express opinions free from the prospect of incurring defamation, whereas the Supreme Court opinion was that freedom of speech couldn't be elevated higer than some individuals' interest in their good reputation;
- In Sprint Communications Co. v. APCC Services Inc. case (2007) the Supreme Court quotes even Bob Dylan!
Also English judges use a language full of unconventional metaphors: in Bulmer v. Bollinger case referring to EU law the Court makes this comparison: "The Treaty is like an incoming tide. It flows into the estuaries and up the rivers. It cannot be held back. Parliament has decreed that the Treaty is henceforward to be part of our law".
I agree with yours opinions,about the fact that our civil law system is based on codificate rules,but i try to find something,an "example"of literal judgments, close to what was asked. Has been difficult only think about it,but i tried.
ReplyDeleteRegards
I have found a very nice German judgment. The case is about a man who was driving his car intoxicated with a blood alcohol content of 1,11 per mill.
ReplyDeleteThe judge wrote his decision as a poem and the defense lawyer gave his statement also in rhymes.
This decision was handed down by a trial court in contrast to our impression today that judgments written in a poetic way come especially from higher courts.
Amtsgericht Höxter, Urteil vom 21.06.1995, Az: 8 Js 655/95
Fundstelle: NJW 1996, 1162
Aus den Gründen
Am 3.3.95 fuhr mit lockerem Sinn
der Angeklagte in Beverungen dahin.
Daheim hat er getrunken, vor allem das Bier
und meinte, er könne noch fahren hier.
Doch dann wurde er zur Seite gewunken.
Man stellte fest, er hatte getrunken.
Im Auto tat's duften wie in der Destille.
Die Blutprobe ergab 1,11 Promille.
Das ist eine fahrlässige Trunkenheitsfahrt,
eine Straftat, und mag das auch klingen hart.
Es steht im Gesetz, da hilft kein Dreh,
§ 316 I und II StGB.
So ist es zum Strafbefehl gekommen.
Auf diesen wird Bezug genommen.
Der Angeklagte sagt, den Richter zu rühren:
"Das wird mir in Zukunft nicht wieder passieren!"
Jedoch es muß eine Geldstrafe her,
weil der Angeklagte gesündigt, nicht schwer.
30 Tagessätze müssen es sein
zu 30,- DM. Und wer Bier trinkt und Wein,
dem wird genommen der Führerschein.
Die Fahrerlaubnis wird ihm entzogen,
auch wenn man menschlich ihm ist gewogen.
Darf er bald fahren? Nein, mitnichten.
Darauf darf er längere Zeit verzichten.
5 Monate Sperre, ohne Ach und Weh,
§§ 69, 69a StGB.
Und schließlich muß er, da hilft kein Klagen,
die ganzen Verfahrenskosten tragen,
weil er verurteilt, das ist eben so,
§ 465 StPO.
The answer oft the defense lawyer:
Der Mandant, einerseits zufrieden,
andererseits ein wenig beklommen,
hat den Urteilsspruch vernommen.
Im Hinblick auf die Sach- und Rechslagen, die allseits bekannten,
und nach Rücksprache mit dem Mandanten
tu ich hiermit kund
für alle in der Rund',
für Staatsanwaltschaft und Gericht:
Rechtsmittel einlegen - tun wir nicht.
I think it might be interesting to take a reflective look at some events of the U.S. Supreme Court of Justice in the 19th century.
ReplyDeleteThe Declaration of Independence adopted in 1776 estabilished equal rights for all people and in particular "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness". (In my opinion the last one is very peculiar and interesting).
The historical reality makes it clear that this dream of equal rights has long been a right of whites and the judges of the U.S. Supreme Court have deleted the illusions and highlighted these contradictions, defining with very strong language that goes far beyond the confines of the law, relations between white men, blacks and american indians.
In 1857, the Court had to decide whether an emancipated slave may be considered an American citizen, with a frenzied speech outlining the legal relations between the Americans on the one hand, and the Indians and blacks on the other.
For the Court the Indian governments have been
"considered and treated as foreign governments, JUST AS IF AN OCEAN SEPARATING THE INDIANS FROM THE WHITE MAN."
Their "submission to the white race" was the result of events, for the Court indians were emigrants at their own home.
But if the court grants to the Indians at least something, does not allow anything to blacks. In one of the most shocking statements ever recorded in an American Supreme Court Decision, Chief Justice Roger B. Taney declared that blacks were
“beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery.”
(U.S. Supreme Justice Court, 6 March 1857)
Regards,
Carlo Alberto Norzi
I know I am late, but I had some difficoulties in writing in the blog! I was interested in an American case about two Italians. They were two immigrants, Sacco and Vanzetti, who were executed in USA in 1927 for the murder of two men during a robbery. Their trial was very famous at the time because there was a heated dispute over their guilt or innocence and whether or not the trials were fair. Some of the critics felt that the authorities and jurors were influenced by strong anti-Italian prejudice and prejudice against immigrants widely held at the time and also by the fact that they had radicals ideas, as they were anarchists. Many legal historians have concluded that Sacco and Vanzetti’s prosecution and trial constituted a blatant disregard for political civil liberties. The biased opinion of authorities emerges for example in the ill-concealed subjectivity of the verdict, in the judge Thayer's decision to deny a retrial amd in the language used by the Governator Fuller that looks quite unbelieving when he writes, in the response to Vanzetti’s clemency petition, that “I realized at the outset that there were many sober-minded and conscientious men and women who were genuinely troubled about the guilt or innocence of the accused and the fairness of their trial.” The trial was so important that there are references to it also in some plays, films, paintings and poems.
ReplyDeleteBest regards,
Grazia D'Alpa
I would like to point out the difference between the figure of the Prince in "The Prince" (1513) of Macchiavelli and the other of Erasmus in "istitutio principis christiani" (1516). According to Machiavelli the reason of state plays a prominent part role in the individual reasons and also the church, which is considered an essential component of the society but regarded as an instrument. The figure reflects the prince's pessimistic conception of human nature, wrapped in his petty selfishness, permeated by greed and ambition, always ready to do evil, then to impose himself also uses means that common morality and Christian morality consider illegal.
ReplyDeleteErasmus in his treatise to carlo V outlines the figure of a prince who performs a moral function, and acts for the common good; is like god on earth "Quod deus in universo, quod sol in mundo, quod oculus in corpore, hoc oportet esse principem in republica " central figure in the state "Quod cor est in corpore animantis, id est princeps in republica" he behaves like a good family man" Bonus princeps non alio animo debet esse in suos cives, quam bonus paterfamilias in suos domesticos"
One exemple of the conversational or homely stile of judicial opinions according to' Benjamin Cardozo point of view, but also of the third strand of law and literature (law and narrative or legal storytelling)is this sentence of Cassation n 1636 in 1998: 'Costui, come aveva fatto altre volte, l aveva prelevata presso la sua abitazione, per effettuare la lezione di guida pratica. Senonché, con la scusa di dovere prelevare altra ragazza pure interessata alle lezioni di guida, l aveva condotta fuori dal centro abitato, e, fermata l autovettura in una stradella interpoderale, l aveva gettata a terra e, dopo averle SDI agora una gamba i jeans che indossava, l aveva violentata. Consumato l amplesso, l aveva condotta a casa imponendole con minacce di non rivelare ad altri l accaduto. I genitori, vedendola turbata, le avevano chiesto spiegazioni, ma aveva preferito non raccontare quanto le era accaduto.'
ReplyDelete'Deve rivelarsi che e' un dato di comune esperienza che e' quasi impossibile sfilare anche in parte i jeans di una persona senza la sua fattiva collaborazione, poiché trattasi di una operazione che e' già assai difficoltosa per chi li indossa'. It Is certainly a very strange decision!!!!
Sorry, 'example'
ReplyDelete