What is wrong about Donald Black's theory of law?
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 motivation of an individual as such. In this respect, Black?s theory is blind for social life, which is beyond the behavior of law.
Law, ?a governmental social control? (Black 2), is a quantitative variable that changes in time and space and can be defined by style: penal, compensatory, therapeutic or conciliatory (Black 5). The brief description of law and its interrelation with social control and deviant behavior can be encapsulated in the following scheme. This concept of law put into the context of social life gives a framework of the behavior of law.
Donald Black breaks social life into several variables, such as stratification, morphology, culture, organization and social control. All these aspects are quantitative variables in time, space and across the settings. In contemporary social life they intertwine between each other and relate to law and deviant behavior.
According to Black?s definition, stratification is ?the vertical aspect of social life?, ?any uneven distribution of the material conditions of existence? (Black 11), in other words the discrimination of wealth. Stratification can be measured in quantity, delineated in style and viewed from two perspectives, as a ?magnitude of difference in wealth? (Black 11) and as the level to which the setting is stratified. Moreover, stratification explains not only law, its quantity and style, but also other aspects of social life. The relationship Black is mostly interested in is the positive correlation between stratification and law, meaning the more law, the more stratified the setting is. When utilizing this proposition by inserting other variables of social ...
... middle of paper ...
...rk does not allow moving any further than the behavior of law.
At this point one can distinguish Black?s tendency to unite the opposites, especially evident in his concluding paragraph stating that if all the trends continue, humans are in the advent of a new society, which will be ?at once close and distant, homogenous and diverse, organized and autonomous, where reputations and other statuses fluctuate from one day to the next? (Black 133). The author predicts the future of law, its quantity and style as the meteorologist predicts the weather, observing the environment and making conclusions.
Donald Black proposes a framework for the behavior of law from the social perspective, considering law per se, not involving the psychology of human behavior. As any generalizations, Black?s propositions are abstract, but if one inserts realism into them, their ability to predict will diminish. Explaining all of the aspects of social behavior, Black arrives at the predispositions to deviant behavior, providing a reduced and generalized model on functioning of law, specifically outlined and organized.
Works Cited
Black, Donald. The Behavior of Law. Academic Press, Inc. 1976.
Finally, individuals up against the law perceive the law as a product of unequal power and legality (Silbey and Ewick 2000). They also believe that the law is arbitrary and capricious (Silbey and Ewick 2000). These individuals are reluctant to stand before the law because they do not have the resources to play by its rules; therefore, they often act against the law (Silbey and Ewick 2000).
Social strains or sources of tension are said to be generated by society and do not reside in the individual themselves (Cunneen & White, 2011), crime is seen as being located in social structures or values that are in a way unfair or pathological. As an umbrella theory, social strains in society is a great starting point in the attempt to build a justice system’s framework. Under this broad theory contains Shaw and McKay’s (1942) powerful theory of community and social disorganization. Social disorganization is based around the notion th...
Law is a system of rules that are implemented throughout social establishments to govern behavior. A principle for judging acts as reasonable or unreasonable and they may seem objective, universal, and knowable, which dispositions are guide. Our function is rational activity, and our rational nature gives us dispositions when we are naturally disposed to seek to know, understand, and be
Morality is the principles and standards set by society for evaluating between right and wrong. “One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws” (A Natural Law Approach 284). Unreasonable laws created by a democratic legislature can very e...
The individuals within our society have allowed we the people to assess and measure the level of focus and implementation of our justice system to remedy the modern day crime which conflict with the very existence of our social order. Enlightening us to the devices that will further, establish the order of our society, resides in our ability to observe the Individual’s rights for public order.
In every society around the world, the law is affecting everyone since it shapes the behavior and sense of right and wrong for every citizen in society. Laws are meant to control a society’s behavior by outlining the accepted forms of conduct. The law is designed as a neutral aspect existent to solve society’s problems, a system specially designed to provide people with peace and order. The legal system runs more efficiently when people understand the laws they are intended to follow along with their legal rights and responsibilities.
contravene laws, Jackson et al. 2011). For instance, society might regard various laws that govern them as legitimate when they perceive the legal and justice system and its authorities as promoting suitable standards of conduct, (Jackson et al. 2011). Consequently, such legitimacy pertains to the perception that various enacted laws are supposed to be complied with not as a result of external endorsement, rather because they are the correct behavioral standards, (Jackson et al. 2011). Society may confer legitimacy on law enforcers not merely due to the law enforcers’ adherence to standards of good behavior, but rather because it perceives the law enforcers as representing certain normative ethical frameworks, (Hough et al, 2010). This is particularly
Over the years, different jurisdictions had built their specific system of rules of conduct to govern behaviour. These legal systems, influenced by historical and cultural roots, can be distinguished in two families, the Civil law and the Common law legal systems. The distinctions lies in the process in which each decision is make by the judge and on the legal sources that shapes the law. Indeed, by contrast to the Common law system, which is largely based on Precedents, meaning the decisions that have already been made by judges in similar cases, the Civil law system is based on legislator’s decisions and legal codes with which judges have to justify their judgment . Consequently, instead of referencing to concepts and rules
In this essay I will be discussing how the formal theory of the rule of law is an erroneous means of establishing laws within a state. A central theme to addressing this is essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach my conclusion of the formal theory being proven to be insufficient, one must first appreciate the significant advantages which the substantive theory obtains. However, before doing so, I will briefly mention the importance of the rule of law in society and the requirements it needs to fulfil.
This theory looks at how the sovereign and its officials created the law based on social norms and the institutions (Hart, 1958). However, hard cases such as this makes for bad law, which test the validity of the law at hand based on what the objective of the law was in the first place. The law should not be so easily dismissed just because it does not achieve justice in the most morally sound manner (Hart, 1958). Bentham and Austin understood that there are two errors in the way law is understood, what the law is and what the law should be (Hart, 1958). He knew that if law was to become what humans perceived the law ought to be, the law itself would be lost, but he also recognized that if the opposite was to occur where the law replaced morality, than any man would escape liability and there would be no retribution (Hart, 1958). This theory looks at the point of view of the dissenting judge, Justice Gray, which is that the law is what it is, even if it may conflict with morals. Austin stated that “The existence of law is one thing; its merit and demerit another. Whether it be or be not is one enquiry; whether it be or be not conformable to an assumed standard, is a different enquiry (Hart, 1958).” This case presents the same conflict that Bentham and Austin addressed, that the law based on the statute of the
Law is a tool in society as it helps to maintain social control, promoting social justice. The way law functions in society and its social institution provide a mechanism for solutions. There are many different theories of the function of law in relation to society in considering the insight they bring to different socio-legal and criminological problems. In the discussion of law’s role in social theory, Leon Petrażycki and Eugen Ehrlich share similar beliefs in the jurisprudence of society. They focused their work on the experience of individuals in establishing meaning in their legal relations with others based on the question of what it means to be a participant in law. Jürgen Habermas presents a relationship between law and morality. From a certain standpoint, law is a key steering mechanism in society as it plays an educational role in promoting conducts, a mean of communication and it
Law is the framework which applies to members of the community and sets the binding values and standards recognized by its subjects. It regulates their behaviour and it reflects the principles ...
The relationship between law and morality has been argued over by legal theorists for centuries. The debate is constantly be readdressed with new cases raising important moral and legal questions. This essay will explain the nature of law and morality and how they are linked.
The Sociological Definition of law suggests a link between laws and customs. To understand laws
Man has recognized the importance of justice in his society since the earliest of times. In order to serve justice, there has to be a law to settle differences among the people of the state. The history of law in relation to society reveals that humanity’s earliest efforts at lawmaking were prompted by the basic desire of self-preservation. Although engulfed by a society that necessitated such combinations as clans and tribes for protection, as well as for social and economic advancement, the nature of the individual led to the development of certain expressed general rights with regard to person and property1. Generally, these unwritten rules governing social and economic interaction recognized the right to defend oneself from injury as well as to enjoy property without outside interference. While sufficient for primitive societies, unwritten rules of social control were ineffective in a rapidly developing society. So, an effort was made to clarify them so that all the people would know their definitions, limits, and applications.