Stefan Zweig’s renowned novel, “Schachnovelle” or “Chess Novella”, delves into the story of an intellectual individual imprisoned during wartime. He finds himself with only a stolen chess book hidden in his cell for reading material. With nothing else to engage his mind, he turns to the book, learning the game of chess.
Upon gaining his freedom, he tries his hand at chess and discovers that the game isn’t just about following rules – it’s about understanding them. The protagonist internalizes specific moves, positions, and patterns from the book, only to realize that these patterns don’t apply identically in real-world scenarios.
This story serves as a metaphor for our understanding of law, codes, or the constitution. These guidelines help shape our perception of justice but leave room for interpretation depending on the case at hand. No single book can predict all possible solutions or scenarios, as highlighted by Aristoteles. Viewing a case through a narrow scope of law, while ignoring its broader context, can result in justice being shortchanged.
This misinterpretation often occurs due to bias. Legal practitioners may become accustomed to interpreting certain cases in a specific way, applying a rigid pattern and forgetting that the application and interpretation of the law should be limitless.
It’s concerning to see biases manifest, such as in Germany, where a family matter case was suspended due to criminal acts. It’s understandable that these are separate legal domains, but neglecting additional interventions or ignoring pertinent facts simply because family law cases are typically processed in a certain way is a restrictive stereotype.
Read more in the book “Legal Ties, Family Bonds”