Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
Just law and unjust law. essay
The analysis of les miserables
Just and unjust laws
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: Just law and unjust law. essay
In the movie Les Miserables, the characters Jean Valjean and Javert illustrate the relationship between just and unjust laws by demonstrating the results of an unjust law. For example, when Jean Valjean steals a single loaf of bread to feed his starving nephew, he is punished with nineteen years as a prisoner. Even after nineteen years, Jean Valjean is released on parole and is unable to work. This is an example of an unjust law because Valjean committed a very small crime, yet he is punished extremely harshly and treated without mercy. The quote, “justice without mercy is cruelty,” is demonstrated throughout Jean Valjean’s life because he is severely and cruelly punished for a crime that saved his nephew’s life. If the judge had seen that
The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.
As a young man, he dreamed of becoming president of Haiti one day. He often told his childhood friends he would be president of the first independent black republic in the world. As a leader, he espoused a certain disdain for the Haitian bourgeoisie, commonly known as the "Haitian merchant class" whom he believes to be an oppressing force against most Haitians. To some Haitians from the Northern part of Haiti (Cap-Haitian); Delmas (where he was the chief of police); Grande’Anse (where he was elected senator), Guy Philippe is a hero; a sort of Robin Hood. But to the United States Justice Department, and agents of the
King urged people to obey laws, but the exception is unjust laws. "...there are two types of laws: just and unjust...One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (King). He quotes St. Augustine in saying "an unjust law is no law at all." He goes on to describe a just law as a law that follows moral law and the law of God. He describes an unjust law as out of harmony with moral law, and a human law not rooted in eternal and natural
In the story of “Just Mercy”, Bryan Stevenson recalls pursuing law and the need to help those who were wrongfully convicted. However, during Bryan’s quest to do the undoing of those wrongfully sentenced to death row, he faces obstacles in getting funded, rejection from judges and discrimination from the community and the Alabama law system. Bryan, recounts the cases he won and the cases he will never forget in his book. I believe Bryan Stevenson saw the good in every prisoner he met with. He believed in justice and helping the people who were pushed on the rug and forgotten.
Unjust Law as defined by King is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law.
In the excerpt from Stephen Nathanson’s 1987 book entitled An Eye for an Eye?, he argues against the “eye for an eye” principle, or lex talionis. The principle states that the punishment given to criminals should be equal to what they did to their victims. Nathanson argues that there are two problems with this principle. First, it permits and justifies extremely immoral actions - rape and murder are not in any way morally permissible and people should not be subjected to such treatment. Second, it is extremely difficult and often impossible to apply to most cases. Making the punishment equal the crime in cases of drug trafficking, drunk driving, or unlawful possession is simply not possible, so therefore the principle crumbles and is revealed
...riving a society of justice, and showing compassion to those who commit one of the greatest evils a man can commit, expresses cruelty to the society, especially toward those loved ones of the victim who yearn for justice.
Unjust to me means anything that goes against the golden rule, which is to “treat others as you want to be treated". I have a fondness for the simplicity of the golden rule and I think it puts everything in perspective in terms of morality for everyone of all ages. From my point of view the concept of the golden rule epitomizes the moral code. The golden rule is best understood by saying “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.” When you apply the rule you’d have to imagine yourself on the receiving end of the action. If you act a way towards someone and are unwilling to be treated that way under the same circumstance than you violate this rule, thus making it an unjust action. That includes having that other person’s likes and dislikes in mind. Of course I do believe there are levels to it, a murder isn’t on par with stealing your brother’s socks.
Criminals are considered unjust because they committed a crime, but if someone of higher power seizes one’s possessions by force or arrests them or anything similar to what the criminals do they aren’t shamed by the people but are praised instead. In closing, being on the receiving end of injustice causes people to criticize “those who revile justice”. And finally, injustice is more beneficial to the people because it is more profitable to one’s
First of all innocence & goodness is no guarantee for justice. Anyone who is perfect can suffer any consequences no matter what it is. John Proctor
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.
According to Foucault, the penal justice system in the eighteenth century followed one fundamental principle: there should be no punishment without an explicit law and an explicit behavior violating the law (Foucault, “Truth and Juridical Forms” 56). Th...
In matters of law, society discusses not morality, but justification. There is never a question as to whether or not some action is right or wrong, just if it is a reasonable reaction. Murder, for example, is despicable in all cases. Under extreme poverty, when the divide between the rich and the poor grows wider, though, some homicides might seem acceptable, righteous, even. Not only does this ambiguity cloud the mind of judges and jurors, but it does, in fact, disturb the minds of those oppressed by their surroundings.
In the literature, The Kite Runner, by Khaled Hosseini, the idea and representation of justice, and its relationship to that of the treatment of women in Afghan society, the ever-changing politics of Afghanistan, and the desired results of redemption and forgiveness, become illustrated through the novel’s characters and motives. Justice can be defined as the quality of being guided by truth, reason, and fairness. The Kite Runner illustrates the power of influence from an outside power and its effects on society, and the minds and lifestyles of the people. In relationship to the Cheverus High School Grad-at-Grad profile the actions and wrongdoings that take place in the The Kite Runner and in Afghanistan prove to be injustice.
These are just three contradictions of the word justice and there is probably more. In each of these instances justice has been mutated and manipulated into becoming the total opposite of itself. Like everything else Justice cannot be perfect, but unlike an opinion Justice can be either right or wrong. Ethics and morals of an individual heavily sway issues as being just or unjust, but there is always a right or wrong, it's just sometimes not fair.