The proverb ‘beauty is in the eyes of the beholder’ has a similar meaning in law. In the area of law, this particular proverb means that not all people will approve or respond positively to a particular law or decision by a court. Or rather, a law that is acceptable to one person may be rejected or viewed differently by another. In law, several persons can have different opinions regarding a particular law or court decision on a particular case or issue. In its common understanding, law is viewed in terms of rules: A rule clearly states what activity should carried out or rather what may be done and the manner in which they ought to be done. Some rules may restrict certain activities depending on the type of law that has been enacted. The law has ‘power conferring rules’ that gives provisions for some activities to be done and one is given a legal protection and backing Rules are set to guide people on what they are to do and what they are not to do; this makes it normative. All rules, regardless of whether they are customary, legal or moral are normative. All rules, whether legal, moral or just customary, are normative; they outline the standards of behavior that people have to conform to if they are affected by the law. However this does not equate law to a ‘system of rules’ because in any given social group, a system or rules exist other than the law. For example, there are legal rules and moral rules; legal rules and rules of custom and etiquette. These rules are always different in one way or the other; however, the normative aspects of the rules remain the same. This paper therefore seeks to elaborate why there are differing opinions among various people regarding specific laws.
Reason for Varied Opinions
When a particular law is enacted, there are several reactions to that law. For instance, in the United States, there are two groups of systems as regard to interpretation of issues. The leftist (liberals) and the Rights (conservatives) have different ways of interpreting laws. The leftist are of the position that things ought to be done in a free- way and that people are not to be policed around as how things are done in their lives. The conservatives on the other hand, operate on the notion that things should always remain at status quo. They are not firm believers of change. The two groups have different opinions in interpretation and enactment of particular laws in the USA as a result of this. They have offered strong dissenting opinions in debate of different issues including abortion, same sex marriage only to mention a few. In light of these different opinions, the courts have to come in as an arbiter to ensure to meet the ends of justice. However, the courts must give the impression that they are total impartiality in the matters they hear and determine. However, this begs the question, how true is this statement? The courts have been hugely accused of being biased and being conservative in regard to the decisions they deliver regarding different issues. Looking at it from a common perspective, one cannot totally say that the courts are not biased. This is because in deciding a particular case, one side is satisfied and another side is dissatisfied. To the satisfied party, it is called justice but to the dissatisfied party it is known as injustice. This particular notion therefore means that in whichever way a court of law decides a matter whether leftist or right, it cannot escape the criticism from either side.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
How then is the court able to redeem itself from this blame? The courts in most instances rely on the law applicable in deciding the matter in question. If the law applicable is applied validly and used in determining an issue, then the court is able to absolve itself of any blame or whatsoever. After this, people tend to attack the law itself other than the court enforcing it. It is important to note that a particular law is always subject to different interpretations and opinions before enactment; this is the whole reason why there is a law making process.
The main reason for having a law making process is to be in a position to hear, accommodate, tolerate and include the opinions of several stakeholders that the law is bound to affect should it be implemented. Particular provisions of a law are bound to different interpretations. For instance, in the provided cases (one and two), in the first case Nate Anderson seems to critique the applicability of the law in question regarding cyber- crimes and he raises serious concerns about privacy, liberty, internet policing and even goes ahead to say that the statute is the worst law regarding cyber security in the world and it infringes on the principle of sovereignty in international law. In case number two regarding the same law, the writer seems to praise it by saying it is a milestone in fighting cyber crime and enforcing cyber security in the world. He says that the law promotes a unified approach to cyber security all over the world (Kaplan, 2006).
In light of the above two approaches, it then begs the question, why the two opinions differing on similar statute? As discussed above, a similar statute can have different opinions attached to it. This is referred to as merits and demerits of a statute. The merits of a particular statute refer to the pros of the statute, to mean the issues that the statutes come to cure whereas the demerits refers to the cons of new problems that the statute raises. For this reason, there is the principle of treaty reservation under international law. This principle allows states to ratify a treaty but with exception to a particular clause(s) of that treaty to mean that it is not binding to that state. These provisions seem to allude to the fact that even in international law states/people can have different opinions regarding the same treaty. It is however important to note that the perception given to a particular law can influence its acceptance or lack thereof. For instance in case one above, one might be led to think that their privacy and internet freedom is being curtailed by the federal government and that his personal information will always be at the disposal of the FBI. In case two, one will be led to think that that very same statute will be able to enhance cyber security and assist in law enforcing like tracking and busting child pornography rings all over the world and enhancing state co-operation in promoting cyber security. From the above discussion, one can then conclude that it all comes down to perception.
Conclusion
In conclusion, it can therefore be agreed that perception is largely influenced by difference in interpretation of a given law or treaty. Given the differing opinions in the world, it is therefore imperative to say that people view laws differently; a law that is acceptable to one party may be neglected by the other. This then edifies the statement that says ‘beauty is in the eye of the beholder’. In summary, opinions in law will always be valid, but it depends on the premises and depth of an individual’s argument on interpretation.
References
Anderson, N. (2006). World’s Worst Internet Law” ratified by Senate; The Convention on Cybercrime has passed the US Senate, and that has some civil .
Kaplan, D. (2006). Senate ratification of cybercrime treaty praised . Retrieved October 23, 2016 from; http://www.scmagazine.com/senate-ratification-of-cybercrime-treaty-praised/article/33764/
