In his book the “Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What’s Right” Rosenbaum, captures his readers with his analytical take on the failures in the legal system. In his first chapter he discusses and dissects the split between the moral and the legal, bringing to the reader’s attention the “avalanche of moral corruption and cynicism” in our legal system. He stresses how the legal system is willing to overlook many things because the concern isn’t solely serving justice but instead making progress on caseloads. And stresses that our legal system’s “path to justice” is the “soul crushing and dehumanizing” of the individual because justice is simply an “answer to injury, even if unjust”. All that matters is that the ruling be “legally correct”.
Rosenbaum questions the idea of the morality of the countless lawyers and judges (the difference between what’s right and what’s wrong), many of whom know the difference but regardless choose to become influenced by the “treadmill towards resolution” in legal process, where truth loses a bit of its essence. Therefore, I would like to pose two questions; is it possible for courts to align their legal decisions with morality? Would you be one of those individuals who would give into a mob mentality and set aside your morality or would you take a stand and speak out against the unjust?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
First I want to apologize for responding before the rest of you (students) have to Katiria’s blog. I decided to do so since this upcoming week promises to be intensely busy for me, and I have some time this quiet, cold Sunday to write.
Katiria asks, “is it possible for courts to align their legal decisions with morality?” I suppose I’ll just say that yes, it is possible. I do think in some instances it is possible even if in some other instances it may not be at all possible. In other words, I don’t think we can answer that question globally. Perhaps it would be useful to find ways to show instances where the law has been changed to line up with ethical principles (isn’t the Constitution a set of ethical principles—a statement of values and morality—what is right and wrong, and haven’t we lined up law against the Constitution?). I don’t think it’s a matter of absolutes—it’s not that the law either “is” or “isn’t” aligned with “morality,” or that there is this one “thing” called “the law.” The law is comprised of thousands of rules developed over time and geopolitical space. Can we find instances where the rules were changed to align with morality? Can we find instances where they were not?
Katiria also asks if we would set aside our morality or take a stand and speak out against the unjust? I’m not sure if Katiria is asking us to answer as if we were a judge, an attorney, a juror, or some other participant of the “legal system,” or if we are to take up the question more generally. In terms of the former, it’s again difficult to answer because I don’t know, really, how I would act or what decisions I would make if I were a judge, an attorney or a juror. It would so depend on the real-life case and a complex of considerations that make the distinction between the two more blurred than not (what if making one decision violates my ethical code and making its opposite decision violates another of my ethical codes? Without a specific case I can’t say what I would do).
I do strive, in my life and in my work, to take a stand and speak out when I do see what I consider injustice. For example, I believe U.S. participation in the horrors of modern warfare—the deaths, mutilated bodies, dehumanization, and destruction of social and material infrastructures—must be contested, resisted, undermined, stopped. It doesn’t matter to me that “the military” and militarism have become so “normalized,” a seemingly “natural” part of our society (even an honorable part of our society) that to contest it seems inappropriate. Since I believe a huge injustice is going on—our young people are being recruited to kill, die and become maimed in war, enormous numbers of Iraqi and Afghan civilians have been or are being killed, maimed, displaced, their homes ruined, their social worlds disrupted—it does not matter to me that the institutions of the military are "legitimate" (just as the law is "legitimate") or that in some rare instances military institutions serve humanity. Its main function today in helping the US realize its imperial ambition is not just and according to my principles, it’s not moral. And because so many lives are at stake, I can’t “set aside my morality, “ but feel compelled to take a stand and speak out.
p.s. here's the citation I mentioned in class: "The Antigone Dilemma: When the Paths of Law and Morality Diverge." by J.C. Oleson. Cardoza Law Review. 2007. Vol 29:2: 669-702
I think that if we focus on the possibility then yes, anything is possible, but of course that is not the issue here. Individuals morality like Vaughn said, vary from person to person, “everyone draws the line at different points.” Say a judge is pro life, It would be absurd for that judge to rule on an abortion case strictly by his morals if the law does not cover it as a crime. Lawyers and judges are expected to rule based on the law alone. In the case Staples v. U.S., Harold E. Staples was charged with possession of an automatic unregistered machine-gun, and his case was reversed because the law was not specific enough concerning whether knowledge of the type of gun was essential to convict. I would say it’s immoral to have an unregistered gun out in the streets the moral thing to do was to convict Mr. Staples, but the judges cannot do that because the law does not grant them that power. Manny said that laws are working to coincide with society’s morals to make more just laws and I agree thats the only thing that we can hope for, but moral does not necessarily mean just. I think the someone’s morals cannot interfere and be interdependent with the law, but that laws should be just. Can that happen with or without morality? That depends on each independent case.
Concerning mob mentality I think that it is simply brainwashing at it’s greatest. In class we discussed soldiers, and they are the best example. These people get into the mentality of us versus them, and under such circumstances, their minds, in my opinion, seems to be at a very susceptible state where it might seem easy to get them to go along.I think that this is a difficult question to answer. What are the risks if I do not go along with that I’m told? I would more than likely die, and is it moral for me to knowingly die and hurt a lot of people? I think that once the human mind is affected , it is no longer your morals, but that of the group , which is a whole entity on its own. But I think that if I was in a situation where I realize something is wrong and y “morals” don’t agree, then I would calculate the risks and either stand up for my “morals” or beliefs or not be part of the mob... hoping I can have a choice.
I'm with Professor Waterston in most of what she said -- busy week and so I'm writing now, even as we try to let students answer first, as well as her statements about how important the specific context is to any of these questions. Indeed, last week during class I kept thinking about how impossible it is to talk about our law as if it were a monolithic, knowable thing when it is constantly adapting to our changing society. As horrific as the Dred Scott case was, for example, the same institution turned around a hundred years later to provide the case law that girded the Civil Rights movement. The same laws that denied women the right to own property, divorce and vote adapted to grant women the rights to do all of these things. It is a living entity -- that's why it is so important to take care of it.
On the mob mentality question, I want to make the point that back at the murky beginnings of this country, John Adams (revolutionary and 2nd POTUS) was opposed to the idea of revolution because of the potential for mob violence that he saw in colonial Boston. The thing that he clung to was the law, which he recognized as deeply imperfect (he saw how it could be manipulated to serve British interests) but the best tool for social justice. This fear of mob violence and belief in the law was why he agreed to defend the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre, even though all his friends and allies were opposed to him. Sometimes the unpopular, moral decision is to defend the law. This goes back to my earlier point that because the law is so important and so murky (as it adapts over time), it is vital that we understand it and take care of it (which is not always the same thing as obeying it, as John Adams surely knew). It is our duty as citizens, or perhaps struggling with these decisions is what makes us citizens.
Last -- though this is far from the final word on this, I'm sure -- on the military question. I am a pacifist and a collector of all the wonderful stories about what happens when countries give up their military and spend the money on something else. Nicholas Kristof, who we'll be reading this semester, wrote a NYT editorial on Costa Rica and how great it has been for the education and economy there to have basically disbanded its military. (I'll put the link to the story in the Check It Out section of the blog.) When I went to Israel recently, I was saddened by how intensely military that society is and how such militarization leaves so few options for imagining a different way, the more perfect society that Israel had hoped to be when it provided a refuge in the mid-20th century. I feel the same way when I see the inexorable workings of our own military industrial complex, the kinds of things Prof Waterston addresses in her comment. However, and this is a big however, when you look at Israel's neighbors or events like 9/11 (when the attack has come to us as opposed to our own questionable policies of "pre-emptive war"), I wander back into the same murkiness of the issue about law and morality. Some cases are clear cut, and others -- such as how you defend yourself when others perceive you as a threat -- are not. The U.S. and Israel, to take two examples of many countries with complex foreign policies/military commitments, are not in the same situation as Costa Rica.
I hope I can hold your attention. This was difficult for me to cut down :) (Could've started with that emoticon)
Katiria asks whether we can align morality with legal decisions. I also needed a lens to focus my response: who is "we" (as professor Waterston states, is it the lawyers, the judges, policy makers, lay people, etc?); and also, what would a perfect example of morality look like in a legal decision?
If the legal system is currently operating under two goals 1) serving justice 2) doing so in a timely manner, why does Rosenbaum say the decisions are "soul crushing" and "dehumanizing"? Marling points to Manny’s response in class: laws are working to coincide with society’s morals. Often individuals look for validation of perceived wrongs within the framework of the law (eg. Civil lawsuits). Everyday citizens are taking each other to court to get monetary compensation for the intentional and unintentional acts of others. If you ever catch Judge Judy, the majority of cases appear based on personal principle, between two individuals once emotionally tied to one another. These kind of cases undoubtedly take a huge portion of a lawyers time. I have heard that 9 out of 10 times a hospital can stop a law suit simply by a sincere apology. Although it would call for radical change, somehow these individuals should be encouraged to hash it for a period of time, on their own, without bringing the judicial system into the picture.
Then we could make more room for some of the cases we saw when we visited court with Thomas Giovanni and sat in on arraignments. I noticed that quite a few homeless individuals were summoned to court for lying on the side of a building on a cardboard box. The judge dismissed officers ticket indicating a fine be paid to the state (…and the homeless man would get that money from…?) and commonly handed out a sentence of a few days jail-time. These are exactly the “soul crushing” and “dehumanizing” decisions made by judges, even if they appear lenient. The judge did society’s eye a service by getting a poor man off the street for a few days. I heard a lecture recently about success and failure: how in America we believe we work on meritocracy – if you work extremely hard every day, and have talent and energy and skill nothing will hold you back. If you’re lazy and wait for opportunities to come to you then you will fall to the bottom and stay there. When it comes to the homeless, the American legal system is making these “dehumanizing” decisions based on our country’s values of a meritocracy, which is insane, because it does not take into account the many variables that may have caused that individual to become homeless. Being homeless is more likely to be associated with poor work ethic and bad habits than misfortune. Regardless, we can’t identify with them and therefore we give them less time (think about how this happens in budding relationships).
A possible solution is to create an agency (outside of those in the discipline of administering legal outcomes) who could open services to the homeless, where they can work during the day on community needs, giving them a little money, giving them energy, teaching a skill or work ethic, making them feeling productive. Another agency could be created to enforce a more stringent health code and look for other ways to improve section 8 housing for individuals in poverty, to show these individuals we actually care about their health (which the health of all New Yorkers).
I went to get my nails done at a place called "Beauty Bar" on Friday. It's exactly as it sounds, serving alcohol while you get your nails done. The nail service makes the shop no money, other than increasing the chances individuals will want to see what BB is all about and come in for a drink. The woman doing my nails described the nail salons in the city, on every block, empty. She described how sad the women inside look without business. It made me realize how much useless space there is in NYC, meant for business but attracting little. It also reminded me of an idea I read in “A Kind of Genius”; hotels that were used for homeless people as shelter. No doubt there are TONS of hotels in the city without business these days. Why are we not using these locations as shelter for those who have none - why do we need to have another hotel to compete with the hundreds of hotel rooms already available to us in NYC. The morality of social justice could look like interdisciplary fields (such as a hotel with its connotations of luxury and the legal system, with its goal to "answer injury") combining forces in ways we haven't seen before. Who would have thought mixing peanut butter with cold spagetti noodles could be such a delicious combination?
Vera's Common Justice agency is a relevant example of the moral administration of justice. Faces and stories are exchanged between defender and victim, which I suppose would resonate more positively than the abuse the defendant would experience in jail.
Would you be one of the individuals who would give into a mob mentality and set aside your morality or take a stand and speak out against the unjust? Phrased that way, the correct answer is obvious. We'd hope to be part of the latter. The mob mentality is full of emotionalism with no concern for the facts and a disregard for individual rights. But justice as we learn about it in “intro” it always isn't possible. When we're on the side that may be harshly punished for an act which may be justified, we'd beg our lawyer to do what he has to do to get us out of a mess. What we need to do is recognize that justice is not administered via "the book" in "black and white" but that administration of justice is more nuanced than that. The question that administrators of justice should aim to answer is whether or not their decision will move us toward further violations of individual rights or a better protection of them.
Katiria's question of whether "it is possible for courts to align their legal decisions with morality?" That's a tough question because lawyers, judges, etc are the judicial branch which are there to interpret the law and to carry them out.
But there have been cases where an individual did what they thought to be morally right despite being told to do something that they felt to be an injustice. For example, I recall reading a NYTimes article regarding a Manhattan Prosecutor (Daniel L. Bibbs) who felt that the defendants whom he was told to convict were actually innocent of the crime they were being accused of. Although he told his superiors that he knew that they were innocent they told him to go into court to convict them nonetheless. Following what he thought was the moral thing to do, he helped the defense gather evidence and track down hard to find witnesses to fight the case against the state. This story really caught my attention because it made me think about how many more of these cases do we have in our court systems? Here is the link to the article if you would like to read the story - http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/23/nyregion/23da.html
As for Katiria's second question of "whether we would give into a mob mentality and set aside our morality or would we take a stand and speak out against the unjust"? I think as an individual, I hold myself very highly and strongly to my morality and will speak out at what I feel to be unjust. But as a lawyer or judge I would have to follow what the law interprets to be "just". Rosenbaum's reading was very thorough on how rigid our legal system is with processing cases that come before them. As Rosenbaum stated, they are more interested in the facts regardless of whether they are true or not.
Professor Waterston, I agree with your thought on how our modern warfare is serving as an injustice for our troops. Our troops are being thrust into intense warfare in Afghanistan with no real clue as to what they're doing there.
I have been reading this wonderful autobiography called "The Cancer Journals" by Audre Lorde and it keeps reminding me of our class because she discusses the importance of "the transformation of silence into language and action." Lorde spoke out in the 1970's on race, homosexuality, gender, and cancer. After getting a mastectomy, Lorde refused to get a prosthesis because she believed that it was a conspiracy to keep women silent about cancer and the reasons behind why they had gotten ill in the first place (carcinogenic beef feed, pollution, radiation, etc.). "...what would happen if an army of one-breasted women descended upon Congress and demanded that the use of carcinogenic, fat-stored hormones in beef-feed be outlawed?" Lorde talks about how she was berated for not wearing a synthetic breast form or getting breast reconstruction and how people looked at her as "bringing down the morale" of other women. But she refused to join the "mob mentality" and refused to get an unnecessary breast surgery that would hide what she had gone through to make others feel better--a surgery that may even stir up dormant cancer cells. Lorde actively speaks out against the unjust and reading this book, I'd like to believe that in a similar situation, I could be just as brave and courageous; that I could stand up for myself and others while most people are doing what they are told to do. I wonder if I really would though. It takes a lot of strength to go against the crowd when most of our lives we are taught to imitate others--our parents, our teachers, our peers...we are taught to act normal and obey the rules. We are amazed when we hear about psychology experiments in which people do horrible things in the name of obeying authority or going with the crowd, or when we talk about Nazi Germany and people blindly following Hitler, but really people are trained from birth to go along with the crowd and not to make a spectacle of ourselves--to blend in. It shouldn't be that surprising at all. Lorde asks "What are the words you do not yet have? What do you need to say? What are the tyrannies you swallow day by day and attempt to make your own, until you will sicken and die of them, still in silence? Perhaps for some of you here today, I am the face of one of your fears. Because I am woman, because I am black, because I am lesbian, because I am myself, a black woman warrior poet doing my work, come to ask you, are you doing yours?" And Lorde is right, we swallow so much of what we see and hear every day and rarely do we speak up and fight. Rarely do we break our silence. We talk and discuss and talk and discuss some more and that is very important, but how are we putting those words into action? Sorry if I've gotten off topic! This has just been running through my mind for a few days.
What are the assumptions embedded in Katiria’s two questions? The first assumes that-if it were possible-it would be indeed be preferable for the law to proceed from a moral foundation (we claim that ours does and, by the way, that morality is derived from a specifically Judeo-Christian doctrine) and/or to reflect contemporary mores. As Marling observes, there are ways in which the law must transcend individual morality; to not do so would bring an unjust resolution, as in the case of a judge enforcing his or her morality in contraindication of the law. On the other hand, Adolf Eichmann got into a lot of trouble claiming that he was adhering to Kantian ethics by following the spirit of the Nuremberg Laws as “a legislator” would have, missing Kant’s point that each man “act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should be a universal law.”
I won’t rehash the argument here about multiple, contradictory moralities that vie for dominance on the world stage; Kant, like many others, believed in a universal morality, although he rejected religion as the basis of this, finding instead that law “came from within” (innate knowledge of right and wrong) rather than being externally imposed by God or the Church. Clearly, whichever rubric you employ, knowing right from wrong is tricky, slippery, and always leaves us with unintended consequences. The judges, for instance, who condemned so many juveniles to hellhole detention centers upstate were faced with a choice of that disposition versus sending the kids home to abusive, neglectful families. Failing the complete overhaul of not just our justice system but capitalism in general, there is no “moral” decision to be made most of the time, only the one that is slightly less injurious.
Would I speak out against injustice? I try to. Like Danielle, I would like to think I could raise my voice if circumstances were dangerous and begged a rebellion. But I also remember a mentor of mine, a Jewish psychiatrist who had lost ancestors in the Holocaust. Dorothy did much good in this world: her work with juveniles was even cited in a Supreme Court case concerning the age at which individuals could be executed; she was a tireless advocate for indigent defendants and for abused children. Yet, she wrote in her autobiography that she had always been an overachiever and had lived much of her life not for financial recompense but for recognition and the admiration of her peers. She could not be certain, she said, that if Hitler had offered her status, and funds to pursue her work, that she would have been strong enough to say no. Were there a draft and my son or daughter were called, I doubt that I would hesitate to use all my resources to get them out of service, or out of the country. How I wish I could answer the question about the call to morality in the affirmative! But, knowing the capacity of the mind to rationalize away cognitive dissonance, I just cannot be sure.
"Is it possible for courts to align their legal decisions with morality?" I think it is possible to incorporate morality into legal decisions. I believe the law was created based on the morality of our founding fathers. Whether we agree or not with their morality is an entirely different question.
As I write this entry, I can't help questioning the meaning of morality. What is morality? Looking at the dictionary definition doesn't seem to very helpful. Morality is defined as the distinction of right and wrong. But, who labels what is right and wrong? I guess that it must depend on the ruling members of a particular society.I will venture forth and claim that morality is simply based on the will of the majority.
Looking at morality from this perspective, it doesn't matter whether morality is aligned with legal system. It would still be perceived as unjust to the small group of people who disagree with the will of the majority. I realized that my view of morality is a bit negative, and I even surprise myself for thinking this way.
The second question posed by Katiria was whether we would give in to a mob mentality or would we take a stand against injustice? I want to be in the latter group, I want to fight for what is right. The only problem is that it is not easy to distinguish between mob mentality and our own personal morality. I mean, we must accept that mob mentality has been embedded into our brains since birth. We are taught to blend in, to accept an identity, to not question but to be compliant beings. Am I immoral if I can't distinguish what is right and what is wrong, or is society immoral for making me this way?
I think that legal decisions can square with morality. However, the discord in the process occurs when so much power is put in the hands of so few and when the public simply doesn't care.
The typical overwhelmed and overworked judge (who likely holds some sort of bias) cannot preside fairly over so many trials. The sheer number of cases leads to the "meat grinder" sort of legal system Mr. Thomas Giovanni alludes to. Also, an unscrupulous, manipulative shark of a lawyer can sway an impressionable jury (see below) any way he or she desires. The competitive nature of legal professions stressed in the article presented by Katiria is pretty spot-on.
Lastly, juries are usually comprised of jurors who sit reluctantly and begrudgingly. It seems like everyone who is fit to sit on a jury is too either busy or snakes their way out of serving. Last semester when I was called to jury duty and sat through to the jury selection process, of the people who were selected to sit a great deal seemed to have a rudimentary understanding of English and hardly knew what their duties as jurors were. People are not involved enough and sadly do not wish to be involved at all in the process if it inconveniences them in the least.
From what I have seen and heard, jurors are typically people I would never want deciding on my case (if, god forbid, I would ever be involved in one). I would want an engaged jury, who knows their duties and what they entail, and that have, at the very least, a full understanding of the English language. I hate the way this all sounds but I don't think it's fair to sacrifice justice for political correctness.
I was raised by my grandmother and my great-grandmother in Colombia while my mother worked seemingly non-stop. My mother and I eventually emigrated to the United States in '94. As an immigrant myself I have the utmost respect for my community and due to my upbringing, I have a great love for my grandmothers. But in all fairness, I don't think mi abuelita should sit on a jury if she's pushing seventy and has lived in the U.S. for 5 short years speaking very little English, even if she is a citizen.
These conditions could never possibly allow for a fair and effective application of justice. Especially, when the supposed representatives of your community don't care or are unfit to serve to a juror's full capacity. If our society, especially our jurors, acted as the watchmen over our judicial system that we're supposed to be, our law and our legal decisions would square with morality. Whose morality? That's a whole other post, but the point is that at least we'd try.
Sometimes I feel the system counts on these sorts of things in order to move cases along...
As for following a mob mentality, I would never set aside my morality and allow an injustice to just happen. If there's something I can do about it, I'll at least make my voice heard.
Echoed throughout our Seminar and on into the lines of our blog is the palpable fact that “the moral absolute” is unattainable. We cannot deny the fact that no two moralities directly align, and why would we? Morality in and of its self is a measure of the individual. However, morality stripped from the mind of the individual becomes a measure of the majority; hence Katiras brings up the idea of the mob mentality. Morality in many cases becomes a social construct instead of an abstract entity. Therefore It is not feasible for our CRJ system to practice the outright use of morality in its search for justice. This idea puts a very high burden of proof on the “People” who now don’t only have to prove Guiltiness beyond the reasonable doubt but now to a moral certainty.
The job of the criminal justice system is “duh”, to exercise justice. How can a system exercise justice when the people in place are solely “Advocates” for a client or the state, instead of fact finders on a mission to serve society? How can we exercise justice when jurors aren’t allowed to see all the facts and weigh in for themselves? Moving out of the court room, how are we to exercise justice throughout the world when the truths about the intricacies of our societies are buried so far beneath the public view we are divided into two groups? No not the good and the evil or the worker and the criminal, it’s the haves and the ones who have a whole lot more. The distinction lies between those who have life and those who control it. We are fooled by this four to five tier illusion of class, the ultimate injustice.
We’ve discussed that justice isn’t always moral. The closest things we have to a Universal morality are our virtues of honesty and truthfulness. A person’s morality is directly made up of the virtues he or she possesses. That’s a lot of what is missing in the system on a whole. Instead of seeking this unachievable universal moral we need to present all truths and weigh them using our own imaginary line drawn in the sand, then and only then can we see where we all actually find common ground, where we all seem to be separated or even better, scattered. Yes I would speak up for what I believe in but it’s not to frown upon the individuals that wouldn’t, because we are all but only victims of the same untruthfulness of the world we live in. We can all agree that the truth always leads to justice, but what we can’t agree on is where and how to implement it while still being fair and impartial?
To answer Katiria’s first question, “Is it possible for courts to align their legal deisions with morality?
I feel that this topic intertwines with our discussion last semester with the subject of empathy. Only because we were debating on whether a judge (or any other legal representative) should use empathy in making their decision. I would think that empathy would require us to do what we feel is right or morally correct. Although we are not particularly asking to put yourself in that persons shoes, it seems to be calling for the need to look and interpret the law ourselves (as jurors.) Rosenbaum gives us the example of the movie Verdict, where the “the jury exercises faith in its own judgment, ultimately rejecting what is sees as the immoral shenanigans of a system that plays by its own blighted rules.”
To do what is right seems like the basic understanding you get when you are a child, but then why is it so difficult to do what is right by the law? Is it because everyone has a different perspective as to what constitutes as right? Some cultures view it to be right and holy to stone an adulterous woman, but then others feel that it is barbaric and immoral. I believe there is no direct answer to this question, only pure opinion and idealism. Ideally the law is supposed to be what is right by the people, since (according to the philosopher Rousseau ) we are all apart of the social contract. We exchange certain freedoms to gain protection and more freedom. So when it comes to the question, can the courts align their legal decisions with morality, I believe they could try but it will not work out. Sometimes the vagueness of the law and decsions allows for those who are guilty to have a chance. As Professor Stein mentioned, majority of the people in court are usually guilty to some extent. Our legal system is like a game of chance, or dance between the defense and prosecutor. In the end the decison lays in the judges hand, he/she could either use empathy or morality, or he/she could apply the law as black and white. As humans we can’t help but use our reasoning, which is tied to emotion and understanding. A judge has to make the right decision, I am not sure if it is the morally right or right by the law.
Also I can’t help but remember what Vaughn said, it was something like “if we were all equal empathy would come like water.” I believe that we could apply this to this situation. If we all were equal and had the same understanding of what is right and wrong then of course morality would exist without even having to ask. But we do not live in a perfect world and sometimes our imperfections destroy lives or gives some another chance at living.
Just a quick point in response to Amanda: when I said that most people coming before the court were probably guilty of breaking some law, I forgot to mention that so are most people NOT arrested, arraigned, and tried by the court guilty of breaking some law! Where is the morality in that?
It is that saying “see no evil, hear no evil, and speak no evil.” If we ignore it or do not acknowledge that it exists then there is nothing wrong, well that is at least the way our system functions. It feels like our system encourages us to be better criminals and not try to get caught and if we do we get a second chance at either becoming better at the crime or living crime free life.
I think that in some cases it is necessary for one to incorporate their morals within a legal decision, so that they can achieve peace of mind. For these instances, people believe in their morals so strongly that it is almost impossible to sustain from expressing them. However, in other instances, morality and legal decisions do not go hand in hand. For these instances, decisions are not based on what people believe, but rather what is needed/expected of them.
So, yes, I definitely think that it is possible for courts to align their legal decisions with morality; however, not in all cases. I believe that in some cases it is best that morals are NOT incorporated with legal decisions. For example, the scenario that Prof. Stein brought up in class concerning the nurse and her views of abortion. Although the nurse does not believe in abortion, she needs to suppress this belief and provide the customer with the Plan B pill because she must to fulfill her duty as a nurse. The nurse could still retain her beliefs; however, expressing them in her line of work is not the best way to do so.
In life in general, we all, at some time or another, have been asked to do something that we may not necessarily want to do; however, we choose whether to complete it or not. Some factors that help us decide whether to complete these duties are whether or not we want to fulfill the task and does it go against what we believe so much so that we cannot fulfill it. Everyone has morals; some just express them more strongly than others. Therefore, morality and legal decisions can be aligned; it just depends on the person and the scenario.
Post a Comment