CLJS 116

PHILOSOPHY OF LAW PART TWO

 Philosophy of Justice
The Justice System like many of our institutions is essentially a promise. Consider that it is a human system, operated by
humans, which like any other human institution makes it imperfect.

But, just because it is imperfect does not mean it isn’t invaluable. Perhaps our justice system is our most valuable construct.

Ultimately, it is only a promise, but because it’s a promise that people have confidence in, thus it has power over us.

You might consider “The promise of Justice” to be somewhat analogous to the “Value of Money.”

Our money/currency is not inherently worth anything, but is of immense value because enough of us have confidence in it to
allow it to be integral to the way society operates.

These entities are so integral to our society that realistically one does not realistically have an option to ‘opt out’

With this realization this promise also demands some complicity in the upkeep of such systems, unless there comes a time
where there is enough of a “lack of confidence” that it is no longer integral.
 The Promise
The promise of the justice system can be somewhat subjective, but for the purposes of this course let’s accept that our
Canadian Justice System (and other modern/westernized legal systems) ensures:

• Order and civility,

• Freedoms are preserved,

• Reasonable and relative safety,

• Consequences for those who violate our law,

• Reasonable protection for victims of crime,

• Fair and equal treatment for those accused of wrongdoing,

• Reasonable consequences for those determined to be responsible of wrongdoing,

• Most importantly; a system that rewards those who demonstrate confidence in it, and consequences for those who
demonstrate a lack of faith in the justice system.
Preserving the Social Contract
Social contract arguments typically posit that
individuals have consented, either explicitly or
tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and
submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate
(or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for
protection of their remaining rights.

John Locke's version of social contract theory is

striking in saying that the only right people give
up in order to enter into civil society and its
benefits is the right to punish other people for
violating rights. No other rights are given up, only
the right to be a vigilante.

**Note this isn’t a commentary on what people

should do, more a observation on what they will
do.
 How to Gauge Success
Order, civility and law abiding citizens.
 How to Gauge Failure
Disorder, lawlessness, loss of freedoms and a revocation of the legal system (sometimes enabled by corrupt systems).
Discussion
Recap:

• How might we identify failures within a justice system? (Gaps in Justice)

• Are you able to pose some specific examples or hypothetical situations where there is a gap in justice?

• How might gaps in justice be explained?

• **Note: In this context explained does not equate to justified.

Injustice Explained
Here are just a few ways in which gaps in justice may be categorized:

• Bias and/or corrupt officials

• Incompetent officials

• Systems that promise too much

• Feckless systems (Acknowledgment of problems, but unable to achieve solutions)

• Solutions of Justice are misguided or overcompensations of separate issues

• Oversaturated/under funded justice systems

• Misinformed officials or public (unreliable media/mass exchanges of information)

Who’s to Blame?
 Those who make the promise and fail to uphold that promise.

 Those who accept and enable the failure.

 …That includes just about everyone.

Consider this:
What can be done?
A question you might grapple with for the rest of your professional lives.

And one probably better suited to be answered in a pure philosophy course.

Here’s what you should know:

People are responsible for themselves first. Skepticism and responsibility are virtues.

Ignoring the opposing argument does not resolve a problem, and will perhaps inflame it.

It’s difficult to make someone care, approach matters.

Change doesn’t come easy.

Just because we disagree, we aren’t necessarily enemies.

Last Moral Quandary
Here’s a problem for potential police officers in class:
To Simplify: without specifics at this time
• A movement to defund police gained significant popularity approximately two years ago; which has become
particularly popular in the United States of America, following the death of George Floyd (A case study we may
revisit later).

• Since that time there has been countless attacks on police officers, extremely tribal politics relevant to supporting
police and inconsistent institutional support for police.

• In almost every jurisdiction where police were defunded, or abandoned by their lawmakers crime has surged (all
types).

• Beyond police being defunded, there has been trends of mass resignation and instances of ‘Blue flu’ sweeping the
United States of America.

• The argument of whether or not to support police has become increasing emotional and less based in logic
(making logical perspectives on the matter less effective in changing minds)

• The climax may have passed but this problem is likely to persist for the foreseeable future.
Perspective A
• The movement commenced on false premises.

• The recent catalysts of the movement are not innocent victims (George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks,
Jacob Blake etc.,)

• Police are not fundamentally racist and that can be statistically validated.

• Police exist within a morally defensible institution made to preserve public safety and deliver a necessary service.

• The consequences of defunding the police have been objectively catastrophic, wherein there has been
unmeasurable harm done to officers, civilians, and property.

• Apart from removing police the motivation of the movement is unclear. (What happens next?)
Perspective B
• Recent events (George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Rayshard Brooks and Jacob Blake) are just individual examples of
bigger trends.

• Many circumstances of police misconduct and wrongdoing are never recorded and under reported.

• Police are racially biased. Perhaps all of society is racially biased.

• The movement has a non-negligible amount of support. (Typically between 25% and 50% of Americans)

• Police do more harm than good, and have lost the public trust.

• Once police are removed/re-imagined society will be better for all.

 Mission

Learn how to articulate the strongest version of the opposing argument (Fyodor Dostoevsky method)

Learn how you might engage the opposing argument (Logic doesn’t guarantee success)

Hopefully work towards peace and prosperity.

Is there a solution that can be reached, which regains the public confidence? (That may be your life’s work)
 Last Observation
• For your consideration:

• https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wvX7yhJO8dc

• ***2022 Update: A bigger problem has emerged:

The worst part about censorship is the illuminati.