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.