Thursday thoughts

In school, we learn about the law. We learn about the law on this trip, too, but it's different.

Even though it's not explicit, I think the law taught to us in school presumes a certain setting -- one that doesn't align with the setting of rural Eastern Kentucky. I suppose it's the nature of reading appellate cases. We focus mostly on broader questions within the law, policy-making decisions, decisions that track certain themes and principles throughout case law. The law, as it's presented to us in the classroom, is certainly interesting, but it's not personal.

Over the past 7 months, I haven't thought a great deal about how various decisions affect the lives of individuals. Again, maybe it's the nature of the level of cases we read. The higher the case, the more concerned courts are with a broad notion of justice; they move away from a purely individual focus -- what's right in this case -- and look at future effects -- what's better for society as a whole.

I think this trip, though, has hinted at the deeply personal aspects of the law, and what the law can mean to people. Especially poor people.

The law in Prestonsburg is different, I think, from a couple of angles. First, it can be applied differently from what's on the books or in the cases. Actually, maybe this isn't unique to poor areas. It's probably the difference between the law we learn about in school and the way law is practiced in the real world. Still, hearing about a judge not allowing a person to represent himself is shocking. Less surprising, but still not completely settling, was hearing Judge Harris say he makes a number of family law decisions based on how he feels about the people once they are standing in front of him in his courtroom.

I don't mean to say that Judge Harris' system is bad. It's just interesting that the law we learn about in school emphasis a rigorous intellectual analysis, one that seems like it doesn't always suit everyday life. He applies the law in a very personal way. On the other hand, such a process can let in a number of biases.

Second, I think the law is experienced differently by the folks living here. Their interactions with the law, their encounters with the judicial system, are just plain different than those of people who have money. That's harder for me to understand. Legal aid and the other free / low-fee legal organizations can't provide services to everybody. Because they are basically the safety net of the legal system, people who don't get help don't get much else. Money makes such a difference. Furthermore, as Will Synder pointed out, the other problems of poverty -- an unsteady address, telephone number, and so forth -- can make for a quick default judgment.

It's good to get this perspective. I hope I can pursue it more, and keep it in mind throughout the next 2 years.