Before the courts, right receives the determination of having to be demonstrable. Legal procedure puts the parties in a position to assert their means of proof and their legal grounds, and puts the judge in a position to acquaint himself with the matter. These steps are themselves rights; their course must therefore be legally determined, and they also constitute an essential part of theoretical legal science.
It may outrage a person that, although he knows he has a right, it is denied him as unprovable; but the right that I have must at the same time be a posited one: I must be able to exhibit it, to prove it, and only through the fact that what exists in itself is also posited can it be valid in society.
§ 222: Right must be proven
In court, it is not enough to be in the right. You also have to be able to show it.
How does this work?
Through a procedure with fixed rules. The parties present their proofs and reasons. The judge forms a picture of the matter. Each of these steps is itself a right. So the law must lay it down exactly.
Isn’t that unjust?
It can make you angry. I know that something is due to me. And yet the court denies it to me, because I cannot prove it. But the court must also be able to establish the right that I have. I must be able to set it out and prove it. Only then does it count in society.
A picture:
I lent a neighbor money, without witnesses and without a receipt. He denies it. My right is real, but in court it stands on shaky ground.
Summary: In court, right must be provable. The law lays down the procedure for this. Only a right that you can show counts in society.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.