Legal Interpretation in TBB (an essay)

[Antenora]

"I'm afraid this dreadful nonsense is the law": Legal Interpretation in The Bad Beginning

The plot of The Bad Beginning hinges on the matter of how laws and legal documents are to be interpreted. Justice Strauss, whose job it is to interpret laws, comes up with foolishly literal interpretations which both support and ultimately undermine Olaf's plot-- and which, like many other instances of stupidity and incompetence in the Series, serve to dash all hope of a happy ending.

As Klaus learns from Nuptial Law (97), the laws of "this community"(perhaps synonymous with "the city") contain a loophole: it may be possible to legally marry someone by presenting the correct ceremony in a play, since the law does not rule out this possibility. However, there is a good reason the laws would not account for such a situation-- because normally no one thinks of a theatrical marriage as legally binding, since they accept they play as fiction. Therefore, all legal actions in the play (such as the signing of a document) are only meaningful within its fictional "frame" and apply only to the characters, not the actors portraying them. Even if a real judge plays a judge, and a real document serves as a prop, legal actions presented in the play are still not legally binding. This distinction between fiction and reality is such common sense that the laws should not need to account for it, but in Snicket's world, authority figures are often lacking in common sense.

Justice Strauss takes the sort of approach to legal matters which Sunny would later denounce as "Scalia!". She believes the letter(not the spirit) of the law must be obeyed, even if it violates common sense-- and she does not consider the likely intentions of the people who wrote the laws or documents. Surely whoever wrote the laws of "this community" did not intend to make fictional marriages valid in the real world. Justice Strauss does not attempt this argument, or even to claim that the marriage is invalid because Violet was coerced. Rather, she helps Violet's desperate plan to defeat Olaf's loophole with an even more ridiculous loophole, namely, signing with her left hand to render her signature invalid(152). Strauss does not even make up her mind that Olaf is a criminal until she realizes that he has endangered Sunny(154), demonstrating that she does not consider the "marriage" to be fraudulent or unethical in itself.

This excessively literal approach to legal interpretation also creates the sequel hook at the end of The Bad Beginning. Neither Strauss nor Mr. Poe can find any way to work around the parents' will in order to let Strauss adopt the Baudelaires(160)-- even though the will is defied in later books, in which they are adopted by non-relatives. Once again, Strauss looks only at the strictly literal meaning of a legal document, and not at the intentions behind it. She does not consider the Baudelaire parents might have preferred to have a good non-relative caring for their children rather than a villain who just happens to be a distant cousin. All that matters to her is the law, even if she herself admits that it is "dreadful nonsense".

[Dante]

I like how you've followed the thread of legality throughout, taking into consideration how it supports the narrative framework, such as the cliffhanger ending. This essay really puts some of the less than perfect aspects of Justice Strauss's character into rather starker relief.

[Hermes]

This is fascinating, Antenora.

I've always felt that the 'Scalia' remark in TPP is a bit unfair, because 'people attending trials should be blindfolded' is not in fact a literal interpretation of 'justice is blind'. But you're absolutely right that the interpretation of the law in TBB is absurdly literal - clearly it wasn't meant to apply to dramatic presentations. Which, given that Justice Strauss is the city's only non-villainous judge, leaves the city in a rather dangerous position.

It also means that the criticism of Justice Strauss in TPP - which I'd always thought was a bit unfair - comes over as more justified.

I'm not sure about the adoption issue. At the point that the question of adoption by Justice Strauss came up, several seemingly good relatives were still available, so I think it's reasonable to abide by the terms of the will at that point. It's quite possible that everyone who adopts them up to TEE is a relative - in which case they are only sent to VFD after the last possible relative, Fagin, has refused them. Of course, it's a question why Mr Poe didn't think of sending them to Justice Strauss then. But perhaps he would have done if they had had a bit more time to think. They did, after all, want to go to VFD, since they hoped it would help them uncover the mystery.

[Christmas Chief]

Wonderful essay; it really sheds light on not only a side less frequently seen of Justice Strauss, but of the absurdity concerning the legal institutions of ASOUE in general.

I think the "justice is blind" satire in TPP was fairly literal- except that instead of justice itself being the one that's blind, it was the characters representing it (so I suppose that would be indirectly literal, which, one could argue, isn't really literal at all).

Jun 11, 2010 15:47:55 GMT -5 Hermes said:

I'm not sure about the adoption issue. At the point that the question of adoption by Justice Strauss came up, several seemingly good relatives were still available, so I think it's reasonable to abide by the terms of the will at that point.

However, Olaf was a relative and turned out to be a notorious villain. How strongly should Mr. Poe stick to the will after that incident? Certainly, relatives are still available, but how would Mr. Poe know whether or not they were to be trusted? He is, after all, clueless, and doesn't believe the Baudelaires when they point out Count Olaf in his various disguises after TBB. He could easily stick them with another villian, and does so in TEE, along with equally disturbing people before that (save for Uncle Monty and Aunt Josephine).

[Hermes]

Jun 11, 2010 17:41:27 GMT -5 Christmas Chief said:

However, Olaf was a relative and turned out to be a notorious villain. How strongly should Mr. Poe stick to the will after that incident? Certainly, relatives are still available, but how would Mr. Poe know whether or not they were to be trusted?

But then, how would he know if non-relatives were to be trusted? It's one thing to set legal documents aside when following them would require doing something monstrously unfair; it's another to set them aside when you just judge that there would be a better way of doing things. The point of having legal documents is to avoid leaving everything to people's personal judgement. I think Monty, Josephine and Jerome all looked like suitable guardians, and Mr Poe wouldn't have been justified in going to a non-relative until they had been tried (and indeed, if he had decided to ignore the provisions of the will someone might have taken legal action). Sir, I'd agree, is another matter, and Mr Poe can be said to have failed in his duty of care there.

[Christmas Chief]

Jun 13, 2010 16:05:21 GMT -5 Hermes said:

But then, how would he know if non-relatives were to be trusted? It's one thing to set legal documents aside when following them would require doing something monstrously unfair; it's another to set them aside when you just judge that there would be a better way of doing things. The point of having legal documents is to avoid leaving everything to people's personal judgement.

Ah, fair point. The Baudelaire parents must have had a reason for choosing Mr. Poe to deal with these matters, anyway- they wouldn't pick just any banker.

[Hermes]

Their choosing Mr Poe is actually one of the weirdest things in the series - though as I read him he is totally honest; he could easily have done a deal with Olaf if he wanted to, and he always refuses.

[Optimism is my Phil-osophy]

I would like to bump this thread (and perhaps several others) in order to make it known to the new generation. Note how simple and clear the Antenora analysis is. Notice how it demonstrates the author's true intention and still makes a "detail" in ASOUE something interesting to think about. I want to take the opportunity to highlight that anyone can be related to someone else when we consider that there are no clear limits in ASOUE for degree of kinship. Taking into account the literalness of the law and the known biological facts (at least in our universe) literally any human being could be the guardian of the Baudelaires if he accepted this and was in the best interest of the Baudelaires.