Number of words: 286<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Under an older and today much weakend view of the nature of law, each such question had a \u201cright\u201d and a \u201cwrong\u201d answer; the \u201cright law\u201d was somehow there, to be discovered or found by the correct use of technical reasoning. Among some lawyers and among some other people, this is still the prevalent view \u2013 more often assumed than expressed. If it is the correct view, then the workings of the capital punishment system are connected in a simple way with the decision of questions of law. Because if there <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This never philosophy of law goes on to say that, where the technical materials do not produce a clear answer \u2013 a condition often evidenced by disagreement as to the answer among equally competent and disinterested people \u2013 then obviousaly since an answer is given, something else produces it. This something else may be the judge\u2019s sense of policy, justice fairness. This is undoubtedly the usual case, in overwhelming preponderance. The judge may, in obedience to the style of our law, conceal the operation of these factors from the public or, quite often, from himself, but they must be there, or disagreement on questions of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
But all this costs money- lots of money. So does everything else I am about to describe. I think I could just barely raise enough money for something like a fairly adequate defense \u2013 though this would utterly ruin me because adequate investigation and good legal counsel come very, very high. But it is allout of the reach of the poor. The poor man – unless some public-interest organisation happens to see an important issue in his case \u2013 can no more afford a really adequate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n