Law, Morality and Justice In Jurisprudence
The topic of jurisprudence is established by statute. Many jurists have argued that no clear definition remains and they also say that law can not and should not be specified because its scope will then be narrowed down. The law is incapable of being described, according to Arnold. He states, however, that this particular truth must not deter individuals from attempting to define law for the rejected universe makes something that is unable to define as irrational. Lloyd acknowledged that, over time, many attempts have been made to provide a generally accepted concept of law, but none of them has succeeded even remotely. Law is incapable of having any generally agreed meaning for it depends upon a number of different factors such as the social setup, cultural ideas, territory, political circumstances, economic conditions, etc. As a result, many distinct concepts of law have arisen. Law is a social and normative science being dynamic and territorial in nature.
Morality has been defined in general to include: all kinds of laws, norms, values or standards by which men govern, direct and monitor their relationships with themselves and with others. Both law and ethics are of similar heritage. Morals ultimately gave rise to rules. The special relationship between law and morality has also been discussed by many jurists and thinkers. While positivists have strongly argued that law can be examined in complete isolation from concepts such as morality, there is a general consensus among lawmakers about the important role morals plays in effective law-making.
Justice is an ideology that represents the fair and just. Basically, it means being honest, unbiased, honest and right. What is just can rely on the context, but the principle of justice is central to its demand. Modern jurisprudence says justice requires that principles such as equality and independence are applied. In each of these cases, however, justice merely means regulation of what the law deems to be right.
The law-justice relationship is very personal and dynamic. ‘Justice’ is a concept capable of various meanings and interpretations. The purpose of this paper is to examine the relationship between law and justice. It has always been recognized that ensuring the effective administration of justice is the purpose of the law. Several jurists have argued that on the basis of how efficiently it has applied ‘justice’ as established by its statutes, a legal structure can be checked.
LAW AND MORALITY
- Morals as the foundation of the law- There was no strong distinction between law and morality in the early stages of civilization and from a single source emerged all laws governing human actions and were all instinctively formed out of supernatural terror. When the State came into existence, it picked up and translated into law certain laws that were necessary for the growth of society. Thus, there is a popular source for both law and morality however in the course of their individual development, they differed.
- Morals as a law test- Several jurists agree that the law must comply with morals. When the theories of natural law were common, it was believed that positive law would conform with natural law which was considered as the highest level of law. Such a view is not common in modern times. Today, on the grounds of morality, the rule is not tested. Close research, however, reveals that a majority of laws adhere to morality nonetheless. This is because morality is an essential component of every culture and society is profoundly interrelated by law.
- In Paton’s words, “If the law lags behind common expectations, it falls into disrepute; if the legal standards are too high, there are significant compliance difficulties.”
- Morals as the end of the law- Many jurists assume that morals are the end of the law implicitly and aim of the law is to ensure effective administration of justice and on the basis of morality, the concept of justice is often described.
LAW AND JUSTICE
What is managed by the state through the legal system in contemporary times is not ‘justice’ but ‘justice according to law’. The separation of powers doctrine mandates the judiciary to ‘administer’ the land rule. It will not assume legislative roles if any law is found to be faulty. It may, at most, issue guidance to assist the legislature. For example, in front of a police officer, a killer might have purposely acknowledged his crime, but may not have been able to do so before a magistrate. In such a case, while it may have guaranteed justice to convict him on the basis of the confession, it must not be accepted by the court because it is against the ‘law of the land’. Therefore, justice shall be assured by the Court ‘according to the statute.’ It is the responsibility of the people to demand that lawmakers amend the law. However, the courts have to rule accordingly as long as the law remains unaltered. The law is blind, and justice can sometimes become blind as a consequence.
In jurisprudence, the sociological approach is concerned with the ends of the statute. As a consequence, morality has become an integral feature of good law-making. International law is also informed by morality and morals. If the law wants to occupy an important place in people’s lives, it should not be unaware of morals and morals.
There is a fairly close and nuanced partnership between law and justice. ‘Justice’ is a concept capable of various meanings and interpretations. It is unable within a definite scope to be limited. Thus, according to its own definition of the word, a legal system must administer ‘justice’ only.
1.V. D. Mahajan, ‘Jurisprudence and Legal Theory’, Fifth Edition, Eastern Book Company.
Also Read: Ownership In Jurisprudence (AUSTIN’S VIEW)