Dennis Fox’s Weblog

Yesterday’s main event was my visit to Al-Quds University’s class for students in the law school’s first Human Rights Clinic.  I talked about several more-or-less related points that interest me and that would, I hoped, interest them. I’ll try soon to write more about the visit in general, which left me with very positive impressions. It’s always good to see people here — in both Palestine and Israel — who are working toward resolving their difficult situation without killing each other or themselves.

What follows is the outline of my talk. It leaves out many details I expanded on, and it includes some points I had to pass over too quickly because of time constraints (made more complicated because everything that I said had to be translated to Arabic, since only a few students were fluent in English).

I’ve expanded on most of these topics at greater length elsewhere, but I’ve never put them together in precisely this way before.

I hope to go back to Al Quds at some point.

——-

What Do Psychologists Find Interesting About Law?

Al  Quds Human Rights Legal Clinic
The Palestinian School of Law
Al Quds University
Abu Dis, Palestine

November 19, 2006

Dennis Fox

1.  Why might psychologists be interested in law?    
      Why should lawyers be interested in psychology?
Psychology: Study of human behavior.
Law is comprised of legal instutions: people interacting
“Psychology and Law” has three areas: 
Forensic (clinical - therapy);  Legal (social) psychology;  Jurisprudence
Common concern: Law’s assumptions about human behavior.
criminals, police, judges, jurors, lawyers, public officials, legislators…
e.g.: punishment deters crime: judges/jurors can weigh evidence; the “reasonable man”
But: Assumptions are sometimes wrong - and should always be questioned.

2.  One of law’s assumptions interests me in particular: “human nature requires law”
Why? because law is an effort to change behavior.
If this assumption is wrong, law may be wrong method of social organization
And if that’s so:
Why do we have law? What did law replace? Law and Equity

3.  Sometimes law leads to justice. Sometimes to injustice. Why?
- Sometimes the law is bad.
- Sometimes the law is good, but the decision makers and enforcers are bad.
- Sometimes the law is good, and the decision makers and enforcers are good,
But the inherent nature of “legal thinking” leads to injustice
Because law (in theory, and often in practice) aims for logic and technicality —
not justice in the individual case.
So: legal decisions are unpredictable despite the written law

4.    Also unpredictable: Use of discretion.
This is a psychological question

5.  One goal of law is social control. Control is easier if people accept it.
Law — like the State in general - strives to be seen as legitimate
But: what persuades people that law and the political institutions that create it are legitimate?
e.g., elections - religious authority - tradition  -  political power  - confidence in leaders
Thus: authorities promulgate ideology to persuade people that status quo is best.
Law part of legitimizing ideology taught in schools, media, etc-          (e.g, case of Israel)
- explains origins/inevitabiliy of injustice (bec. of human nature….)
false consciousness      (e.g.  simultaneous belief in “Jewish State” & “democracy”)
      (cognitive dissonance)
- removes certain views from public discourse (e.g., “radical” or “crazy”  -  or “anti-Semitic”)
- defines acceptable roles for different groups (race, class, gender, religion, etc.)

6.  Law is conservative
Designed to maintain order - to slow response to mass demands -
“Thinking like a lawyer” is a barrier to radical change

7.  How does this relate to Human Rights Law?
Global effort to expand international law.
Goal: Justice? but also: social control? 
Reshaping individual state-determined law with “rational” system:
Organized, bureaucratic, predictable, stable
If established by Western liberal democracies:
Conducive to world business, multinational corporate interests, etc.

8.  Is law always best method to resolve disputes? Alternative Dispute Resolution - mediation?

e.g.: Palestinian customary law
National conflicts: is goal justice? or: reconciliation between enemies to get on with life?

Are these compatible? If not: which has priority?
Your challenge:  resolving this issue for relations between Palestinians and Israelis

9.  Second challenge: creating Palestinian law from overlapping/competing legal systems
What will it take to create one system?
Whose interests will one system serve?
Who will create the legitmizing ideology?
Will  skills you learn to fight Israeli domination help later struggle against injustice in Palestine?

This entry was posted on Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 9:18 am and is filed under Israel/Palestine, Law/Justice, Social Psychology. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.