Source:

Research Paper we completed, this is just an opinion as all of our material.

What is the relationship between law and justice? Law is defined as established standards or guidelines for action or behavior in a society.  Justice is defined as moral rightness. Laws establish rules to maintain social order while justice is concerned with fairness and equity. Law is objective whereas justice is subjective. At first glance, they seem to have little in common.

People make laws to provide a common standard that can be applied to all members of society. This standard allows us to judge the actions and behaviors of individuals within the society. All people are subject to the same laws. In this way, the establishment of laws is meant to develop a foundation for justice. In a perfect world all laws would be just. All people would be the same. Laws would mirror the ethical standards of society and all individuals would subscribe to the same standard. However, in the real world not all laws are just. People are different. They come from diverse backgrounds and cultures. They have differing values and ethical standards. It is this diversity that makes the establishment of laws essential. It also places a great responsibility on every individual. Each of us must ensure that the laws we make are just to all of us. Without these laws society cannot survive. 

Oliver Wendell Holmes states “We practice law, not justice.” He implies that it is the law and not justice that are important for society to function. He would have us believe that because “Justice changes with the beholder’s viewpoint”, there is no universal view of justice. But if his argument is to be accepted, we must answer this question. What happens when society accepts rules that are unjust? The holocaust is an example of the danger of such a belief. During Word War II, those who were in power in Germany legally murdered millions. The belief stated in the quotation by Oliver Wendell Holmes does not recognize that unjust laws can be made. It also ignores the cases where proposed laws intended to protect fairness and equity are not passed. This is especially true when these laws benefit those with power. In the early 1900’s child labor and mandatory working hours benefited wealthy businessman. Although these actions were legal at the time, they exploited the weak and were not just. 

Thomas Aquinas states “Where there is no consensus, there can be no law.” At first this seems a true statement. Society must agree before laws can be passed. In our society congress must have a majority vote to ratify a bill before it can become law.  But is consensus the only criteria for making laws. Our Constitution through the Bill of Rights protects the rights of the individual. These rights outline the freedoms that each of us enjoys. When laws are passed that infringe on these freedoms, our system of checks and balances help to protect our freedoms. It is clear consensus is not always required for there to be law. Individuals have rights that no society can usurp.

William Lloyd Garrison’s statement “That which is not just is not law” most closely reflects my belief about law. Unlike Oliver Wendell Holmes I believe there is a fundamental view of justice which is universal. This view is based on the Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”  This fundamental view relies on basic beliefs of truth, fairness and equality. These beliefs are the foundation for determining what is just and what is not.  Our laws must incorporate these basic truths if they are to be accepted by society. If our laws are not just and do not reflect the values of society, individuals lose faith in the law. They lose their trust in the organizations responsible for making laws. Society begins to question the validity of the laws and the reason for abiding by them.  

Our legal system has many ways of ensuring that our laws are fair and equitable. The process for creating laws is rigorous and methodical, ensuring that laws are deliberate and have purpose. The system of checks and balances provides for the review of laws. The Supreme Court has the responsibility for reviewing and even striking down laws that violate the Constitution. The doctrine of stare decisis helps provide continuity in the law. It helps ensure that laws are interpreted in the same way for everyone in similar circumstances. The doctrine of respondeat superior helps ensure that all parties involved in committing wrongs maintain responsibility for those wrongs. Our legal system has a presumption of innocence for those who are accused of wrongs. This helps ensure that innocent people are not wrongly convicted. Our legal system also provides a mechanism for those wrongfully injured to recover damages. These are a few examples of how justice is incorporated into our laws and into the legal system.

Our laws are created to serve all people but they are not meant to provide “cookie cutter” justice. Changes in society, technology and the environment require us to review our laws in terms of our current context. Blindly following the law without challenging it may not always serve justice. The policy of ‘separate but equal’ is an example of this. In the late 1800’s the case of Plessy v. Ferguson set a precedent that “separate but equal” was both a legal and just way of separating races. This idea was a popular one at that time. However, in 1954 this judgment was challenged in the Brown v. Board of Education case. In this case the United States Supreme Court rejected the idea of “separate but equal”. This case overturned the previous ruling and set a new precedent. This change in legal judgment was a direct result of a change in society’s attitude toward segregation.

As our values change, so must our laws. As our attitude toward slavery, women’s right to vote, and polluting the environment have changed, so have our laws. These changes in attitude reflect society’s new values and a change in our sense of justice. Our laws are a reflection of our values. They can provide a framework for justice but cannot guarantee that all people are treated justly. The ultimate responsibility for ensuring that are laws are just belongs to each of us. We must rely on our conscience to guide us in determining which laws are just and which are not. We must also take responsibility for changing laws that are not just through the mechanisms provided by our legal system.