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.
Interaction and communication in intimate groups is important element in the process of learning. The learning included acquisition of the necessary skills and techniques of committing the crime, sometimes they are complicated, sometimes simple. Second, the person learned the definitions of favorable and unfavorable legal codes, which provided the person a specific direction of motives, drives, rationalization, and attitudes. The definitions may mainly learned from delinquent peers and family structure. When the definitions favorable to violation of law a person has learned excess definitions unfavorable to violation of law, then the person would become delinquent. Lastly, the person would commit crime when an objective opportunity existed (Sutherland,
Legal consciousness refers to how people’s different conceptions of law determine whether they mobilize or resist the law (SOC216, Jan. 26). Susan S. Silbey and Patricia Ewick disclose three narratives of how people perceive the law: before the law, with the law and up against the law (2000). Individuals who are before the law fundamentally treat legality as an objective realm that is removed from their ordinary social lives (Silbey and Ewick 2000). They believe that the law is a hierarchical classification of rules that is both majestic and impartial (Silbey and Ewick 2000). In regards to ‘with the law’, legality is described and played as a game, in which existing rules can be arrayed accordingly and new rules can be invented in order to serve the individual’s interests (Silbey and Ewick 2000). Legality is described as a “terrain for tactical encounters” where
The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that... ... middle of paper ... ...
Regulations have administrated human demeanor for hundreds of centuries, and in present-day, criminal laws are to standardize and occasionally preserve social order. By allocating which conducts are prohibited, they present comprehensible standards of actions, cautioning society about which actions will be or will not be held accountable for, depending on the degree of severity; it is also figurative in conveying a statement that the public objects to these particular deeds. The earliest identified account of written decrees dates back to the period of the Babylonian King Hammurabi, or what we now know today as Hammurabi’s Code, which instituted high principles of an individual’s actions and severe penalties to violators, inflicting consequences equivalent to that of their crimes. An additional early structure of written laws was the renowned Mosaic Law, like the Hammurabi’s Code, based on the rule of “an eye for an eye” (Realities and Challenges 99). The general public in the United States are directed by a great quantity of regulations from an array of foundations such as the federal, state, and local administrative institutes that concern everything from acquiring a license to drive to crime against person. Although the organization of laws in the U.S. is extensive, complex, and varied, it can, in fact, be more comprehensive when sorting American laws into two general groups: civil law and criminal law.
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.
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
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.
First, the chapters cover stratification. According to study.com “Social stratification refers to a system by which a society ranks categories of people in a hierarchy. In the United States, it is perfectly clear that some groups have greater status, power, and wealth than other groups.” According to the textbook “Stratification is unequal distribution of valued
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
The criminal justice system views any crime as a crime committed against the state and places much emphasis on retribution and paying back to the community, through time, fines or community work. Historically punishment has been a very public affair, which was once a key aspect of the punishment process, through the use of the stocks, dunking chair, pillory, and hangman’s noose, although in today’s society punishment has become a lot more private (Newburn, 2007). However, it has been argued that although the debt against the state has been paid, the victim of the crime has been left with no legal input to seek adequate retribution from the offender, leaving the victim perhaps feeling unsatisfied with the criminal justice process. Furthermore, can formal social control institutions such as the criminal justice system and the government provide the best aspect of producing conformity and law abiding behaviour? Hirschi’s (1969) social control theory is concerned with what effect formal institutions have on conformity in individuals and in particular, how law abiding behaviour is produced due to these institutions (Walklate, 2005).
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 essay is the distinction between formal and substantive theories of the rule of law. In order to reach the 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. Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals moral viewpoint.
Law is a social construct, which is a result of various external social influences like culture, history, politics, economy and power. It describes the society that it exists in as it is the ideologies and values of a society that are embodied as rules and principles of law. Law constructs a framework for the society, according to the goals, interests and understandings of the people of that society i.e. It reflects the ideals, ideas and ideologies of a distinct legal culture.
Durkheim sees the role of law and punishment to be important for the solidarity of society as a whole. (Ibid., p81) Here, society has a...
The criminal law takes immense part in society, including the following functions: to deter people from acts that harms others or society. Furthermore, people who do not follow the rules that are being set by the authority, they will be punished. The criminal law is there to guidance the general public on the manners of behaviour, which are seen acceptable by society. (Jonathan Herring; criminal law, page 4 eighth edition)
The Sociological Definition of law suggests a link between laws and customs. To understand laws