Y.’s Reviews > An Introduction To Law > Status Update

Love the latin :D amazing how the book still hasn't talked about the Roman law and the changes that had happened in it and because of/through it.

*The state decides whether a wrongful act is punished as a criminal or civil offense.
*Criminal punishments: fines, confinement
*Civil compensation or restoration
*Administrative revocation of liscences

But why are there no laws for every single thing? The answer is simple. For there to be laws that are feared, there has to be someone to enforce them. And the state cannot punish every mistake or wrongdoing. Too many sanctions would not fare well for the continuity of the rule of law.

Good manner and morals are, both, more or less unwritten rules that help SO MUCH in being able to deal with others on a daily basis (which is the purpose of law: making this easier). Sometimes, the people may want something that you do not want to give in order to allow you to fit it. Mostly, you will have to give in. Otherwise, you may attempt to change the system. The law does not interfere in most cases, but...

It is the people and the circumstances that force it to change. It is not always, and maybe mostly not, the common people who decide what gets put in the constitution/code. But as can be seen from the process of secularisation of Turkey, the people must be given time to adapt before any changes, to keep them "content".

Also, I love that we were told, even though briefly, the history of the legal changes that occurred before Turkey became secular. And commenting on moral laws, it is really interesting and still a little confusing how law and morals could diverge so much! Amazing... It's been told that the law is made to conduct daily problems, and that it is not always fair, but builds up slowly, but...

Rona Aybay is clearly against any religious law lmao. And unfortunately, what he says is not supported by much: no example or the such. Yet, he did mention one point which is really important and valid. He said that laws must be flexible, must change as new technologies appear, but religious laws are usually based on something rigid, not really flexible. It stands, however, that the book may be reinterpreted.

So we've talked about law being derived from the people. But really, not all people think the same. Some prefer stability to justice. And some prefer power to both. So, when coups happen and the government is thrown over, the winner makes up the law. And these laws cannot satisfy everyone but are still needed to sustain the state. Unfortunately, even those seeking "normative law" may know how to implement it.

So, the government > the society standards > the individual morals. This protects the law from being swayed when societies change, but not always is everything written out clearly in the law. Which is why it is sometimes unfair, and not very effective. In page 13, it is stated that even when it should be, it isn't completely equal and fair. The law is still an incomplete institution that can only support life.

Morals can be so confusing as they're based on the cultural ideals of the society, which are always changing. These are 100% subjective, so I wonder if they are written down somewhere as a reference or are left to the judge's discretion... The author directly refers to that in the next section. I am loving the inclusivity of this book! :)