Justice is a huge issue with me so I'm going to make three or four posts on types of justice. These are my views as I see them. Today, I'll cover legal justice. Later posts will involve ideas of personal justice, the enormous topic of social justice and possibly others. Firstly, we'll talk about the most obvious and simple kind of justice: Legal justice.
No form of justice is simple but legal justice is probably the simplest kind. Legal justice is what is on the books, what has been passed by state and federal legislatures. As I'm an American, I'll speak from my country's example. We are a republic, not a direct democracy. Citizens of a republic elect their officials to handle legal matters. Citizens in a direct democracy are all directly involved in the legal process. Direct democracy is unrealistic in nations as big as the United States. We have things to do so we elect representatives to handle socio-political matters for us. Our laws are thus written by these representatives. Federal judges are then chosen by Congress and/or the President to make rulings about federal laws that have been created. State judges can be appointed or elected depending on the area of legality. As I'm not a lawyer or legal expert, that's as far as I'll go on the X's and O's.
Like the mind/body problem in philosophy, there is a legality/justice problem. Spinoza believed that mind and body are the same thing. Certain proponents of matters of justice believe that codified law and justice are one and the same. This is the kind of view of true believers in the legal system, more orthodox black and white thinkers. If it's legal, it's justice. There are no shades of gray or variations. The two are one and the same and that's it because a civilized society wouldn't pass unjust laws. This is a hard line kind of reasoning which is understandable but, the more we know of individual court cases, the more an absolutist view of justice can be disproven. Humans make mistakes, even in important societal issues like justice. Therefore, even a well meaning, advanced civilization creates occasional injustice unintentionally. As justice is vitally important to the well being of humanity, this understandably causes a lot of fear in society. We all know of cases where people are unjustly convicted and even executed. All we can hope for is that it doesn't happen to us. Those that have the hard line view of the synonymous fusion of justice and legality are opposed by the anarchist view that law and justice are completely different. As society has passed many, many just laws in human history, the idea that justice and legality are separate can only anarchic. In this view, if legality and justice are different, then justice cannot be bound by laws. A lawless society is an anarchic one.
The nuances of legal justice come in its evolution. Laws such as "Stand Your Ground" have been on the books and, as we've seen from examples, are often not effective in our moral sense of righteousness. In the George Zimmerman/Trayvon Martin case, it seems clear that Zimmerman stereotyped and essentially stalked Martin, becoming involved in a confrontation that led to the black teen's death. As Zimmerman initiated the affair, it seems wrong to put him in the "just" category. However, for whatever reason, the Stand Your Ground law protected him and he was acquitted. This sparked outrage in many quarters as it seemed clear that an injustice had been created. In that sense, legality and justice were not synonymous. (There are differing opinions, of course, as to whether an injustice was perpetrated in that high profile case.) The law was brought to the attention of the nation and efforts have been made to change it. That's the evolution of the legal system. We're always trying to get it right in our views of what is right. Justice and our views of morality are synonymous. What we consider righteous is what we consider just.
In my view, justice and legality have to be synonymous. If they are not, then injustice is created. Again, sadly, we are not perfect. We can only do the best we can and hope we get it right the first time. If not, then we need to change a law until it is just.
Thank you for reading. Sorry if I ramble a bit as I don't often proofread my commentary for aesthetic quality. My next post will probably be on ideas of personal justice.
