a reflection on justice and the legal system...

i see this as a fitting end to my weeks at court, and my observations and thoughts...a reflection on all i have seen and thought through so far...

the laypeople see the courts as the final arbiter of justice, where they can have their rights upheld and their grievances made public and resolved. in fact, the very symbol of the courts is the statue of justice, with her blindfold and the sword and scales in each hand. that justice is blind and does not discriminate and will do what is right and fair by the law.
and the judges, in their judicial robes, carry with them the very heart of lady justice as the mainstay of their profession. and one hopes that every lawyer helps aid her cause, though general public perception of lawyers is somewhat negative.

but what is justice anyway? we bandy such a word around, and do we even think harder about what it really means? it is in a sense, fairness, and in a sense, what is right. and yet from every party's perspective, their position is right, their truth is truer than the other and their rights should prevail over the other. so what of it?

and then a reconciliation of this apparent contradiction comes in the form of laws which lay down, which demarcate and determine what a person is entitled to, what he can and cannot do, what he should and should not do. these laws provide the guidelines by which justice is to be administered.

the legal system breathes life into those cold words, first formed in the draftsman's office and not yet fully animate. and it is in court, that laws are given life to, sometimes more akin to Frankenstein creating his monster ... as interpretations can run so far from what Parliament originally intended.

yet even with these guideposts, there is still much conflict whether on the Bench or within the Bar in the administration of justice, the main hallmark of the law and the legal system.

what i find most acute is the question of knowing that a client is dead guilty, that he has indeed committed a heinous crime, and yet you as a lawyer is called to defend him. rationally, it is a job, and must be done, but can the conscience sit still with its uneasy stirrings, that in some way you are abetting a criminal? and i would wonder what i would tell Him when i die, if i were to do that. i know i could not abandon what i stand for, no matter the cost, and losing a job is a small price to pay for the strength of faith and beliefs. words are easy, but if it comes to be, i pray for strength to do what is right in His eyes.
many centuries ago, St Thomas Aquinas sought to resolve this conflict by distinguishing between moral and legal justice. that certain things are left to God to judge.
it has been said that the court is a court of law, and not a court of morals. and yet how far can we separate the both? for how far can a lawful judgment be a moral judgment?

in the end, i recognise the limits of the legal system ... that in some cases, the criminals do escape the long arm of the law because the law, as it stands, has cleared them of any sort of complicity...that sometimes the rights of the parties cannot be fulfilled by law alone. and if we recognise as did St Thomas Aquinas, that the courts and man-made laws alone do not form the basis of all that is just and fair ... we will know that there is indeed a justice to be found in life, sometimes we frail humans with our limited vision cannot see what He has planned and will carry out. the law, being man-made cannot provide answers for every question or problem.