Living in a society that is govern by trade law and order is something we can proud of. It is essential to able follow establish rules in order to facilitate. The smooth functioning of all the necessary transactions that are part of daily life. It is one of the paradoxes in life that society can become dysfunctional if it does not follow the rules. Life is not as predictable as we would like. One must be flexible.

It is not the same as being lawless. The rule of law guarantees that citizens have the right to access certain goods and services. Rather than being manipulate by someone in power.

People who have lived in societies with minimal law and order know. That even small transactions like getting a driver’s license can be very stressful. It’s a lot of walking up and down buildings, asking people for help, explaining what they should know, paying a bribe for a paper stamp. And seeing people who are after you, being serve by them because they know this.

Many people are homogenize by the law. We live by the motto that everyone’s equal before the law. However, in real life we often find ourselves in situations. Where we need to go beyond the law and apply the rules to accommodate particular people or situations.

Trade Unionists

This is something that trade unionists know well. Work-to-rule can be consider an industrial action. Working strictly by the book or according to law can slow down everything and make it unviable.

This is true for society as well. It is not only seen as socially dysfunctional but also unhealthy to have too much law and order. Individuals who follow too many rules can seen as rigid and anti-social.

Societies that too driven by law, order, and social control view as pathological in Western liberal countries. These societies are often associate with dictatorships. We see them as creating rigid individuals who have lost their sense of freedom or creativity.

Liberal education is about finding the right balance between requiring students to follow certain rules and giving them some freedom to think differently. This is crucial to encourage participation and foster creativity.

Humanity Is Dependent On Giving And Taking

People who adhere to rules too strictly often deemed anti-social and immoral. A woman was carrying her two children and pushing her pram when she asked a bus driver to help her climb onto the bus. He said it wasn’t part of his job and refused to do so.

The woman was shock and felt entitled to have him violate her rules. The driver noticed, and immediately respond by saying that he was not allowed to do this. Although the driver was probably following the rules and within his rights, most people on the bus were furious and jumped to help the woman, while others looked disapproval at the driver.

This case shows that, even though we may be passionate about law and order, it is part of our human nature to give others space outside the laws. This allows for some give and take, and allows for some flexibility with rules and laws when needed.

However, the bus driver’s example shows that we can act inhumanly when needed. We can refuse flexibility and deny others the space to meet their needs.

It doesn’t matter if we do it because it’s a deliberate act or because it’s not worth the effort, most of the time we resort to the law for the relief we need: I’m only doing my job, This is how things work here, It cannot be helped, and It’s law. We cover up our excess legality.

Two Sets Of Trade Rules In History

This excessive legality can be random and unpredictable, but it is more consistent and structural when we look at the history of Western colonialism or racism. We see a pattern in the history of social interactions where Westerners demand that their racialised friends and family follow the law to the letter. They do not expect it in their interactions with one another.

This is the most visible space for airport security today, be it in paper screening or the extra-meticulous random search to which some are subject.

There still the classic occurrence in government departments, where a person of color is told that a document that she forgot is absolutely essential for a transaction to be complete. A simple Sorry I forgot this paper can be enough to get by another person.

The death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has sparked a worldwide outpouring place grief. Part of this grief is due to her unmatched status as a feminist icon, pioneer for women in the legal profession, and beyond.

Already there is a lot of interest in her departure and what it means for the US Supreme Court and the wider political landscape. We must also reflect on her legacy to fully understand this.

Ginsburg, along with about 500 men, enrolled at Harvard Law School in 1956. She was one of nine women in Harvard Law School’s year. Erwin Griswold (the Harvard dean) asked nine women why they felt qualified to take the place of a man, reflecting the prevailing mindset at the time.

Ginsburg’s response, that she wanted more to understand Marty’s career in law (he was a year ahead of her at Harvard), is a lie. It ignores the fact of her immense contribution to public life over the next six decades.

In a profession that was traditionally dominate predominantly by men, the number nine would be significant. She was the second woman to be appoint to the Supreme Court’s nine-judge Supreme Court in its history, and she did so in 1993.

Ginsburg responded to recent questions regarding when enough female judges. He said that there was enough when there were nine Supreme Court women. Ginsburg famously counter this statement, acknowledging that many people are shock at the response. There have been nine men and no one has ever asked that question. This exchange shows how deeply ingrained was the notion that judging is men’s work.

A Powerful Place Mind

Ginsburg was an academic long before President Bill Clinton decided to nominate Ginsburg for the Supreme Court. She was the second woman to ever teach full-time law at Rutgers University, and the first woman who became a Columbia Law School tenured professor. Ginsburg was also a feminist litigator who led the American Civil Liberties Union’s campaign to ensure gender equality.

Ginsburg was nominate to the Supreme Court. It was an uncontroversial nomination. The Senate confirmed Ginsburg with 96 votes to three.

While there were concerns about her being a radical doctrinaire female feminist, her record at the United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit (she had been appointed by President Jimmy Carter 1980) bolstered her credentials.

Ginsburg spent the 1970s working on a strategy for securing women’s equality. She would call her approach the “The Ginsburg Approach to Legality.”

  • Constitutional principle of equal citizenship status for men and women
  • She sought to establish in a number of cases
  • Like race, sex is an immutable, visible characteristic that has no relationship to ability.

She argued that legal classifications based on sex should also be subject to the same “strict scrutiny” as in cases where distinctions or classifications based on race were made. To put it bluntly, sex pigeonholing should not be allowed. Whether she was representing men or women plaintiffs in a case, her argument was that the law allowed for different treatment of men and women.

Keep women in their place. It is a lower place than that occupied by men in society.

Outside The Court, And Inside Too

Some feminist theorists have expressed reservations over the possibility of a legal system that was design by men to exclude women being fully adapted to ensure equality for women.

Some feminists see great promise in law reform. Others are more cautious. Professor Mari Matsuda’s two-pronged strategy, which states that stand outside the courtroom is possible at times and stand inside it, reflects this tension.

Ginsburg’s legacy as a lawyer and lifelong learner reflects this latter approach. Ginsburg’s faith in law can seen in her willingness to take a stand in the courtroom, literally as a judge and litigator, to change existing legal categories. Her approach was more reconstructive than radical, which is not to say that her ideas weren’t revolutionary at the time.

Ginsburg attempted to rebuild sex roles, and stressed that men and women were not diminish by stereotypes based upon sex.

Ginsburg didn’t just advocate for formal equality. This is the idea that equality can achieve by treating everyone equally. She advocated affirmative action to ensure equality of opportunity.

She preferred incremental change over radical change because she believed that this would minimize the risk of backlash. Preferred incrementalism and her critique of the 1973 Roe v Wade case (the case that shaped US reproductive rights).

Forensic DNA analysis is a powerful tool for solving crimes. It can help identify the perpetrators as well as the remains of victims. It has huge implications for privacy, fairness, and fairness. The law may not be able to keep up with the pace of science and society changes.

It has been 25 years since New Zealand’s Criminal Investigations (Bodily Samples) Act 1995. The New Zealand Law Commission recommend that the law completely rewritten last year. The government is currently reviewing the report entitled The Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations. It contains 193 recommendations but fails to address some of the most complex issues related to DNA databanks.

The issue’s core is the offender database, which the commission proposes restricting to DNA from those convicted of serious offenses. Although this may seem to be a sensible compromise between law enforcement and privacy, it ignores some difficult philosophical questions

Why do we only store DNA from criminals when DNA analysis is so crucial for identifying missing persons, catching the guilty and eliminating the innocent?

  • Are databanks use to regulate more efficient and precise resolutions of crimes or is it a punishment?
  • How is DNA banking allow to be include in sentencing?
  • Even if a databank is only an investigative tool, why not include all New Zealanders’ DNA from birth?

Which DNA Should We Bank On?

The argument for DNA databanks has always been at a difficult intersection. They claim that databanks do not punish but also seek to restrict the databank’s inclusion to criminal record-holders.

The Law Commission recommends seperating the databank categories elimination samples the innocent as well as the missing and unidentified victims and investigations suspects from the offenders guilty. Most index profiles can be delete as soon as they no longer serve their purpose. However, profiles of offenders would only be erase if there is evidence that the offender has been rehabilitate.

This distinction between offender profiles and other profiles in the database is problematic because it reinforces the dichotomy of those who deserve their DNA to be store and those whose privacy warrants protection.

Although DNA banking seems to be a privacy invasion intuitively, it is hard to explain why. The US Supreme Court struggled to determine the privacy interest in not having one’s DNAs collect and stored when it compare DNA banks that were created for convicted criminals to those who had been arrested.

The court stated that DNA profiles are no different from fingerprints and mug shots. However, the court stress that DNA collection was restrict to those in valid police custody and who held for serious offenses, and not the general public.

Maori Highly Represent

New Zealand’s primary database contains only the DNAs of offenders, and DNAs profiles can have hereditary components. This means that ethnicity is a factor in who ends up at the databank. DNA databank also includes over-represented communities in the criminal justice system.

The over-representation Maori in Aotearoa New Zealand databanks was acknowledge by the commission. It didn’t address the issue of possible entrenching this disparity through filtering DNAs profiles through criminal justice. The commission recommends databanks be restricted to criminal justice system personnel. This helps to perpetuate the over-representation Maori in databanks in first place.

Databanks created from convicted criminals, a small and relatively weak segment of society, can be avoided by greater political scrutiny. We should include DNAs profiles of the powerful and wealthy to ensure adequate political protections against databank abuse.

However, this is not to advocate for universal DNAs databanks. The sound scientific and philosophical arguments supporting a broadening of databanks – better identification and elimination, elimination of ethnic disparities – suggest that political justifications rather than philosophical or pragmatic ones underlie the decision of the commission to bank DNA only for serious offenders.