Truth and Clarity in reasoning.
The purpose of this treatise in brief is to elucidate a particular area of focus, on the recent application for a JR, in front of Justice Collins. In the hearing he stated a number of fallacies, that ought to have been treated as such with immediate effect, but alas they weren't.
The aftermath leaves us with an analysis of what went wrong. I am interested in two assertions.
1. I see no inconsistency between the DoR 1668,and the RTA 1991. (this was not shown him, in fact it is a contradiction (the 1st law of thought), from which there is no escape save under the 2nd law of thought, excluded middle. This cannot be treated properly in this expose, since it would delay, divert, and take to long. The argument for those interested in explained in simple terms on the link here....
2. There is a distinction between fines and forfeitures, and the counterpart civil penalties that can always be brought into a tribunal or court, (overlooking the adverse pressure to avoid, due to increasing the magnitude of distress at each stage of an appeals process).
3. Not to mention that at no point was there any discussion of the vast distinction between before and after in temporal comparisons between the aforesaid acts.
First, a few precepts:
Definitions usually proceed by way of the Aristotelian principle, identification of 'per genus et differentia specifica'.
OED 1. Logic. A class or kind of things which includes a number of subordinate kinds (called species) as sharing in certain common attributes; a general concept. (One of the five predicables, q.v.)
Each species is distinguished from all the others in the genus by the possession of some peculiar attribute or group of attributes, called its _specific difference' or differentia.
The attribute by which a species is distinguished from all other species of the same genus; a distinguishing mark or characteristic.
Judgments of subsumption and comparison.
2. OED Chiefly Logic and Philos. The bringing of a concept, cognition, etc. under a general term or a larger or higher concept, etc.; the instancing of a case under a rule, or the like.
3. OED 2. a. Capacity of being likened or compared; relation between things such as admits of their being compared; comparable condition or character. (Always with negative expressed or implied.)
Now you have an insight to the structure of definitions and judgments of relevance. Next we shall concentrate on the specific area of judgments of comparison, that normally follows a path of identifying similarities and differences. Doing this enables one to build a library of categories, eg fiction, non fiction; and continuing down the tree of differences breaking up more categories of each, like fiction, drama, sci-fi, comedy and so on.
What happened when J. Collins stated with perfect coolness, that fines and forfeitures were entirely different from civil penalties, and consequently were not inconsistent?
Easy, he treated a subsumptive judgement of differentia explained above, without looking at the similarities that were overwhelming and meant the argument was totally fallacious.
What he did, by easily understood analogy was to say that there is no inconsistency between men and women, the two have differences sufficient to overlook their similarities in the broader concept of their both belonging to the HUMAN species.
A little like saying that the differentia under the concept human, placed men under another concept like the concept of canines. The argument form is like: Women under the DoR 1668, are different from Women today, under the RTA 1991, because their 'womenness' today, means they belong to another species. Of course this is quite untrue, the confusion arises from the border concept of femaleness, of which there are many categories, like female dogs, cats, fish, elephants, and so on. That's how the Venn diagrams can be used to show the inclusion and exclusion of class concepts more vividly.
While men and women may be mutually exclusive concepts, like male and female, men and women both belong to the same class of humans, just as bitches and dogs do for canines. The most important oversight was that men and women both belong to the genus, humanity, with differentia as per Aristotle's definition above.
Now, returning to fines, forfeitures and these elusive civil penalties, what is required, is to look upwards at the higher genus involved.
Consider the concept of PLUS '+' and MINUS '-' in mathematics, one adds the other subtracts.
In regulating human relationships, giving a plus to a person , like an AWARD, or subtracting something from them, a DEROGATION, and notice they both belong to mutually exclusive class concepts.
THUS any category of fines, forfeitures, civil penalties, injuries and punches on the nose all belong to the class of conferring detriments, and not the class of conferring benefits.
Find one example where any of the particular instances that belong to the class of detriments is actually a benefit, without of course changing the meaning of the words, something lawyers have the most awful habit of doing.
Look now at the Venn diagram's. Next page