Preventing bad laws based on after-the-fact reasoning

In the modern age, we are seeing multiple examples of reactionary legislation being passed based on faulty, after-the-fact reasoning. Lawyers, among others, have a duty to speak out (as servants of the courts and communities) and educate about the implications of passing laws that do not strike the right balance.

In this episode of The Lawyers Weekly Show, host Jerome Doraisamy welcomes back JSA NSW director Andrew Tiedt to discuss the phenomenon of after-the-fact reasoning giving rise to the passage of bad legislation, how and why this occurs, the impact of social media, how key stakeholders can be left out if laws are being passed based on public perceptions and pressure, and why parliamentarians may wish to do this.

Tiedt also delves into why it isn’t necessarily a good thing for parliamentarians to respond to the court of public opinion, the implications of the passage of bad laws on practitioners (such as criminal lawyers), how lawyers can prevent such laws from being passed, their duty to be advocates, the longer-term dangers of such bad laws passing, who else bears responsibility for ensuring laws are measured and reasonable, and why it can be so hard to strike the right balance.

If you like this episode, show your support by  rating us or leaving a review on Apple Podcasts (The Lawyers Weekly Show) and by following Lawyers Weekly on social media: Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn.

If you have any questions about what you heard today, any topics of interest you have in mind, or if you'd like to lend your voice to the show, email [e-mail] for more insights!