• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

How Is Law Affected By Morality And Justice?

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

How Is Law Affected By Morality And Justice? Over the years, the legal personnel of the English Legal System have tried to separate law from morality and justice. This has proven to be quite a hard task considering the fact that even the House of Lords judges allow their morals to influence their decisions on certain cases. I think it is difficult to separate morality from law because most of the laws in Britain are an example of enacted morality, such as the law on manslaughter and murder, which echoes the commandment "Thou shalt not kill." Separating justice from law is just as hard. The dictionary definition of justice is 'the normative idea of the proper outcome to a case.' People seem to misinterpret this and understand it as the actual outcome of the case and so having been through the process of law and not getting the outcome they expected they say that justice was not done. Moral principles can prove to be justificatory, that is they provide reasons for actions rather than excuses; they are concerned with the rights of those other than the originator of the principle. ...read more.

Middle

Another judge working alongside Lord Templeman, known as Lord Slynn disagreed and argued that there was nothing in the law saying these men had done wrong. He argued that the judges should think of the law and not of their feelings towards this particular subject. And so there you have it; morals cause conflict between judges during cases. It is hard even for them to separate morals and law in certain cases. The main difference between law and morality is that morality changes according to people, slowly and only at the will of the people. It cannot be deliberately changed whereas law can and is deliberately changed by legislation. Another variation is that morality is voluntary; people do not have to comply with moral rules but they do have to meet the terms of law. If somebody does something considered morally wrong they will not be faced with official sanctions although they may feel guilty or ashamed. However if somebody does something wrong by the law they will be faced with legal proceedings. ...read more.

Conclusion

Why play with fire if you don't want to be burnt? Mr Revill knew exactly what he was letting himself in for, no sane person will let somebody walk in and take their possessions. Maybe he didn't expect to be shot at and maybe using a gun is kind of drastic but what other means of protection has an elderly man got against a 21 year old? Yes he could have a guard dog but dogs need caring for, maybe Mr Newberry felt he wouldn't be able to take the dog on walks or feed him properly. Maybe he could have phoned the police but the burglars may have taken off by then. All is possible. I don't think it was a very just decision to make Mr Newberry pay damages when clearly the trouble was brought to him. It is cases like these where law and justice come into conflict. I think it is important to understand the fact that both morality and justice are separate to law however all three concepts do overlap in the sense that a lot of laws are on the basis of morals and morals are each individuals idea of justice. Rajveer Khera - Law ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our GCSE Law section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related GCSE Law essays

  1. Study the concept of Reasonable man and reasonability in tort law.

    It is a breach of duty and negligence in law ranging from inadvertence to shameful disregard of safety of others. In most instances, it is caused by heedlessness of inadvertence, by which the negligent party is unaware of the results which may follow from his act.

  2. Criminal Law (Offences against the person) - revision notes

    Defendant's defence was the firearms were not real and he hadn't seen the possibility that someone would die. Judge told the jury that the old man had a heart condition (that the defendant didn't know about) Jury had an advantage of hindsight Convicted on the direction Overturned because of direction R v Watson (1989)

  1. In the context of the theoretical proposition on the issue of law and morality, ...

    Human rights argument as a demand for "keeping the state from prying into death chambers over dying people's bedside and proactively as a claim for the creation of structures that enable people to die as they choose."5 The right to die meant non interference by the state when mentally competent

  2. Critically discuss different possible meanings of justice and explore the relationship between law and ...

    Another interpretation put forward was "Corrective Justice". Aristotle believed that if someone or the state suffers, due to the actions of someone else, this argues that there needs to be some correction to make up for it. If the injured party is left as they are, this is not just.

  1. Property, Liberty, and the Law

    I fully agree with this. One should be able to name a new species but may not be able to patent it. If this was true wouldn't we be able to patent our son or daughter? They are technically new to the world, and have a different set of genes than anyone else.

  2. The Constitutionalisation of the Treaties by the European Court of Justice.

    The Court's final textual argument was that by virtue of the preliminary reference procedure in Article 234, the Treaty was recognising that nationals would invoke Community law in their courts. This is sound, but again it does not necessarily follow that all Treaty provisions, particularly those specifically directed at Member States, should have such effect.

  1. Lay People

    If it is Innocent then the defendant has done nothing wrong and is free to go.

  2. The Law Relating to Negotiable Instruments

    or some party liable thereon must give notice of dishonor to all other parties whom he seeks to make liable (Sec. 93). Each party receiving notice of dishonor must, in order to render any prior party liable to himself, give notice of dishonor to such party within a reasonable time after he has received it (Sec.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work