Does this imply that “legal person” is a pure superset of adults, minors, and fictional persons? That doesn’t track for me. I tend to think that different legal systems have different criteria for different purposes (can enter into contract, can be prosecuted for crimes, can cross a border, must pay taxes of what type, etc.), so the blue should be a bunch of misshapen disjoint areas that cover parts of each of the sets of humans.
Below is an oversimplified version purely for the purpose of helping the reader to visualize this. It does not contain all the relevant categories, nor is its particular arrangement in any way representative of any particular legal precedent or theory. It is merely an aid to assist the reader in conceptualizing.
I was really trying to use this disclaimer (located above the picture) to illustrate the limited purpose of the picture. If you think it needs additional clarity could you specify what about it you found confusing?
You may also be interested in the ‘problems with legal personhood as a concept’ section I just posted.
I don’t understand what the venn diagram is trying to elucidate or exemplify. Usually venn diagrams are chosen to show intersection or union of sets or categories, and I’m not sure that these sets are well-defined enough to be modeled very well in set theory, as opposed to more rule-based legal theory.
I really do like the starting point of “the technical legal meaning of a ‘person’ is a subject of legal rights and duties.”. I’d enjoy a discussion of the edge cases and applications of that, without overgeneralizing to other possible category descriptors. Especially the rarely-stated requirements to be held responsible—continuity over time, and control of assets that can be taken being the two interesting ones (I think).
I was especially thrown by “fictional persons”, which I don’t believe can ever be legal persons. Tom Sawyer nor John Wick have no rights, and can not be held responsible for their fictional actions. Collective persons or organizational persons, of course can, which is what you may have meant by “fictional”.
I can see why “fictional persons” absent explanation is confusing. This is a term which courts/legal scholars use to reference organizations like corporations, trusts, etc. It’s not meant to refer to fictional characters. But that only makes sense to me because I’m familiar with this subject matter, so I need to add a footnote about it for others. I will add in a quote to clarify this.
The goal of the venn diagram was to show two things:
Legal personhood as a category can be thought of as a space representing rights and duties.
Categories within this broad space can exist separately with some overlap.
Does this imply that “legal person” is a pure superset of adults, minors, and fictional persons? That doesn’t track for me. I tend to think that different legal systems have different criteria for different purposes (can enter into contract, can be prosecuted for crimes, can cross a border, must pay taxes of what type, etc.), so the blue should be a bunch of misshapen disjoint areas that cover parts of each of the sets of humans.
I was really trying to use this disclaimer (located above the picture) to illustrate the limited purpose of the picture. If you think it needs additional clarity could you specify what about it you found confusing?
You may also be interested in the ‘problems with legal personhood as a concept’ section I just posted.
I don’t understand what the venn diagram is trying to elucidate or exemplify. Usually venn diagrams are chosen to show intersection or union of sets or categories, and I’m not sure that these sets are well-defined enough to be modeled very well in set theory, as opposed to more rule-based legal theory.
I really do like the starting point of “the technical legal meaning of a ‘person’ is a subject of legal rights and duties.”. I’d enjoy a discussion of the edge cases and applications of that, without overgeneralizing to other possible category descriptors. Especially the rarely-stated requirements to be held responsible—continuity over time, and control of assets that can be taken being the two interesting ones (I think).
I was especially thrown by “fictional persons”, which I don’t believe can ever be legal persons. Tom Sawyer nor John Wick have no rights, and can not be held responsible for their fictional actions. Collective persons or organizational persons, of course can, which is what you may have meant by “fictional”.
I can see why “fictional persons” absent explanation is confusing. This is a term which courts/legal scholars use to reference organizations like corporations, trusts, etc. It’s not meant to refer to fictional characters. But that only makes sense to me because I’m familiar with this subject matter, so I need to add a footnote about it for others. I will add in a quote to clarify this.
The goal of the venn diagram was to show two things:
Legal personhood as a category can be thought of as a space representing rights and duties.
Categories within this broad space can exist separately with some overlap.