Logic is the key to making fair judgements

Logic is the key to making fair judgements

By Stefanus Haryanto

BANDUNG (JP): Justice Oliver Wenuell Holmes of the U.S.
Supreme Court once said that the essence of the law is not logic,
but justice. However, from the controversy over the alleged
collusion in the Indonesian Supreme court, it is very clear that
logic is very important to assure the public that justice is
upheld.

On following media reports on the recent issue of collusion in
the Supreme Court, one gets the feeling that the chief justice of
the Supreme Court was not totally honest with the public when he
stated that instead of collusion, he only found "procedural
irregularities" in the case of Gandhi Memorial School.

The feeling is legitimate, because the chief justice did not
provide a plausible answer to Justice Adi Andojo's arguments
concerning the motive behind the defense lawyer's effort to
persuade the Director General for General Crimes to assign a team
of judges of his choice to hear the case. Furthermore, the chief
justice did not respond to Adi's argument about why the case was
tried expeditiously while the defendant was not kept in custody.

Instead of providing plausible answers to the above arguments,
hoping that the case would fizzle out, Chief Justice Soerjono
ordered Adi to refrain from speaking to reporters. This action
further exacerbated the situation, because by doing so Chief
Justice Soerjono once again showed his arrogance, and people
considered that an insult to their intelligence.

From a logical point of view, people were disappointed with
the chief justice because of his failure to respond logically to
Adi's charges. Instead of responding to these charges, the chief
justice attacked Adi personally by ordering him to refrain from
speaking to reporters, and even proposed dismissing Adi from the
bench. This was considered a Argumentum ad hominem, which is when
an opponent's character is attacked rather than answer the
contentions made.

Things would have gone differently had the chief justice
responded logically to Justice Adi's arguments. By responding as
he did in offering what is called a logical fallacy, Soerjono
lost his credibility, and therefore it was very difficult to
convince the public that his statement was right and there was no
collusion in the Supreme Court.

Judging from the response to the Supreme Court's handling of
the allegation of collusion, it can be surmised that logic is
important for lawyers if they want to make sure their arguments
are plausible and acceptable to others. Living in a more educated
society, it is improper to provide an argument based on authority
or political power.

Being aware of the importance of logic for lawyers, the
Consortium of Legal Science of the Ministry of Education should
seriously consider the possibility of making it compulsory for
law students to take a course on logic for lawyers. There is a
book by an American lawyer titled Logic for Lawyers that could be
used as reference in teaching the subject in Indonesia. In this
book, the author analyzes logical fallacies created by American
judges in their decisions. The decisions are thoroughly analyzed
and vary from those of the District Courts to those of the
Supreme Court of the U.S.

If Indonesian lawyers want to write a similar book, I have a
strong conviction that they would find many decisions that could
be analyzed for inherent fallacies. The statements of the Supreme
Court's spokesman in the controversy over the proposal to dismiss
Justice Adi from the bench is a case in point. He said in a press
briefing that the proposed dismissal was based on Act Number
14/1985 on the Supreme Court. When a reporter asked him to state
the article of the act that could be used as a legal basis for
dismissal, he said "please, read the act yourself".

In Logic for Lawyers, the answer of the spokesman is called
"circling argument" or "begging the questions", since he answered
without answering the question at all. This should not have
occurred in the first place, because as a spokesman he should
have the ability to argue plausibly. The incident also reflected
the spokesman's failure to "speak supported with data", a skill
necessary for lawyers.

In this era of globalization, Indonesian lawyers whether they
like it or not, are forced to compete with foreign lawyers. It
would be a national catastrophe if Indonesian lawyers remained
notorious for presenting logical fallacies in their arguments.

It is of national concern that we make sure our lawyers do not
disgrace the honor of our country. In this regard, Logic for
Lawyers must be incorporated into our law schools' curricula, and
our law students must be trained to argue logically and to always
speak supported with data.

The writer is a lecturer at the School of Law of Parahyangan
Catholic University, Bandung.

Window: It would be a national catastrophe if Indonesian lawyers
remained notorious for presenting logical fallacies in their
arguments.