The Legal Code Of Society

  In legal theory, there is a great debate over whether or not law should be used to enforce morality.  The sides of the debate can be presented as a continuum.  At one end, there is the libertarian view, which holds that morality is an individual belief and that the state should not interfere in the affairs of the individual.  According to this view, a democracy cannot limit or enforce morality.   At the other end, there is the communitarian position, which justifies the community as a whole deciding what moral values are, and hence justifies using the law to enforce community values.  For libertarians, judges should play a prominent role in limiting the state, while for communitarians, judges should

Philosophical thought provides the infrastructure that allows society to author moral laws. While morality may be the aim, other variables can cause these laws to become corrupt. The urge for power is one of many, recurring, variables that infect morality. During these times of ‘infection,’ society must contest those who oppose just laws. In order to shine a light on unjust laws, laws are bound to be broken. It is not only lawful to break unjust laws, but the duty of the people to speak up and be a voice for change. It is critical, during these times, to work towards equilibrium with the goal to change the law. Regardless of the circumstances, it is lawful to break unjust laws with the goal to make them just again.

What light does the Gortyn Law Code shed upon the legal and social position of (male) citizens, women and slaves within a Greek society?

Criminal law is a construct of the government, enforced through tangible measures. In a democratic society, the government is elected by the citizens, and as such, laws are generally conceived with the aim to reflect whatever ethical or moral standards are presently acceptable. However, in order to be truly effective, some legislation must circumvent current sociological viewpoints in order to create laws that are genuinely in the best interests of society. This results in a delicate balancing act, as lawmakers attempt to weigh the views of the majority against the need for laws to be both reasoned and objective.

In her famous 1776 letter to her husband, Abigail Adams wrote in regards to the formation of the constitution: “in the new code of laws which I suppose it will be necessary for you to make, I desire you would remember the ladies and be more generous and favorable to them than your ancestors” (how do u cite stuff) However, it would take another 144 years of dedicated, tireless effort in order for women to receive the basic constitutional right of voting. This conversion of women being seen as second-class civilians to becoming full citizens with the power to vote was a monumental political change in our country. Many suffragists of all backgrounds dedicated their lives to see this change occur. These suffragists were fueled by the hope that women would someday be equal to men not only in the eyes of our government, but in the eyes of our society as well. Their efforts transformed women’s suffrage from an improbable and far-fetched dream, into an awe-inspiring reality.

Prisoner #48551-083 is a 69-year-old white male named Robert Philip Hanssen. The former FBI-counterintelligence-agent-turned-Soviet-spy is serving life in prison without the possibility of parole at the Administrative Maximum facility in Florence, Colorado, where he is kept in solitary confinement. The United States government originally accused Hanssen of trading more than 6,000 pages of confidential information to the KGB in exchange for cash and diamonds and of blowing the covers of double-agents that the FBI had recruited from the Soviets (Willing & Watson). At the time of Hanssen’s arrest, then-FBI Director Louis J. Freeh said that the charges exemplify “the most serious violations of law – and threat to national security” (“Espionage case”, 2001). This opinion should make us question why, when traitors and spies should be executed in accordance to the United States Code of Law, we as a country are so lenient in our punishments of convicted spies such as Hanssen. Is it because we believe that we cannot decide if someone lives or dies? Are we afraid to acknowledge that the information fed to enemy governments could possibly mean the end of the United States as we know it? Or even the end of our own lives? How many people should be allowed to betray our country until we stop this issue before it is continually perpetuated? Although critics believe that the death penalty should be abolished, I use a combination of retributivist and deterrence arguments to argue that

     In his book on ?The Behavior of Law? Donald Black attempts to describe and explain the conduct of law as a social phenomenon. His theory of law does not consider the purpose, value, impact of law, neither proposes any kind of solutions, guidance or judgment; it plainly ponders on the behavior of law. The author grounds his theory purely on sociology and excludes the psychology of the individual from his assumptions on the behavior of law (Black 7). The theory of law comes to the same outcome as other theories scrutinizing the legal environment, such as deprivation theory or criminal theory; however, the former concentrates on the patterns of behavior of law, not involving the

But in the end, there must exist a separation of the private and public life in society. I concur with Devlin that government not ought to impose full-blown morality, rather it ought to eliminate intolerable morality (Devlin, Lecture number 10). Furthermore, under a theory of a natural law, I believe there exists moral truths that prescribe principled and unwavering standards for morality, and that these standards ought to be made law. As Thomas Aquinas claimed, “an unjust law is no law at all” (Aquinas, Summa Theologica). Hence, government ought to enforce morality based on principles and standards of morality that no logical argument could be made against, such as the immorality of slavery. Not the idea of collective morality derived from the general will that Devlin subscribes too. However, I will admit that not all moral questions are as clear of moral questions as that of slavery, or murder. In such cases, man with his ability to reason is the appropriate authority. For regardless, morality is often a private matter and privacy as Devlin ironically claims ought to be respected. Thus, preserving the separation of the public and private life.

Ultimately, the very reality that comes as a result of over enforcing too many laws in turn creates a wide variety of problems within a society that show in a wide array of arenas. Similar to over regulation on behalf of the government in any sort of economic facet, over enforcing penial code creates a standard that lacks the trust bond necessary to a formidable republic and imposes heavy strain on the ability for nature’s moral code to drive the morality of the individual as well as the collective society. Larking cites an example noting that “If the penal code regulates too much conduct that is beyond the common law definitions of crimes or that is not inherently blameworthy, several problems arise: It becomes a formidable task for the average person to know what the law forbids, since the moral code offers no lodestar”; thus encouraging a guilty society given the fact the law enforcement officials will almost always have “probable cause” to make an arrest on anybody in any given circumstance (Larkin, 2013). Although it it’s difficult to deny the need for comprehensive criminal justice reform at the time in which it was carried out, there is no denying the interest of political influence in the manner in which the process was carried out. What is left now involves a system that enforces penalty that has become grossly disproportionate to the severity of the crime and gravely effects the lives of its very own citizens in addition to placing an economic strain on the

Hart’s work through legal positivism argues that laws are used to govern society; therefore, the population is expected to abide by them. As a result, conformity from its members keeps society running smoothly and efficiently (Stith, 2008). However, disruptive members to society are sanctioned to guarantee conformity from the rest of the population (Stith, 2008). Additionally, the criminal code of Canada dictates behaviors that are unacceptable in society

Natural Law by definition is an unwritten body of moral principles that dictate the ethical and legal norms of society. Our Founding Fathers believed that societal norms were derived from immutable principals given to us by God or a supreme power, and adherence to these immutable principles and/or natural laws would aid in creating harmony within a society. James Wilson, once stated, “The law of Nature is Universal. For it is true, not only that all men are equally subject to the command of their maker, but it is true also that the law of Nature having its foundation in the constitution and state of man, has an essential fitness for all mankind and binds them without distinction.” (Manion, p. 530)

Law can be defined as the written agreement that a society agrees upon this dictates appropriate and acceptable conduct and behaviour we display toward each other. Law is the foundation of the society it can only work if the society abides by it and work to maintain its existence, this will help solve any problems and crimes.

This is why it is necessary for a society to set laws based on the general moral convictions they hold.

The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.

In every political society it is the law which contributes to its civilized character, but law is the handmaid of social justice, rendering in the interest of society that which is according to law and to which a person or persons are entitled.