Everyone wants justice to be served, and it is the obligation of the judicial system to ensure that goal is achieved. Justice involves enhancing fairness in a conflicting argument or claim. In other words, it is a just behavior or conduct in response to a situation contradictory situation. However, in most cases, people find themselves denied justice when most needed. History tells of cases of people who have been wrongly convicted for crimes they never committed, while others denied justice after an assault or harmed in other ways. Therefore, it is important to have a detailed understanding of the legal system to be in a position to differentiate between a just and unjust law. At the same time, know where justice is or is not served. In this paper, I will examine the concept of just and unjust law through different theoretical frames, such as natural law, legal positivism, legal realism, and stare decisis, to scrutinize the case verdict on People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015).
First, it is important to differentiate between just and unjust laws. In a letter from Birmingham Jail, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. expressed what just and unjust laws meant. He wrote the letter to present the level of injustices that were happening in the country against people of color. In the letter, he argued that people should be governed by just laws to enhance moral actions (King Jr, 1964). According to Dr. King, oppression and racism against blacks were injustice actions. He added that people not only have the right but also a moral obligation to disobey and break unjust laws. He stated that “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere” (King Jr, 1964). Therefore, society should strive to fight for just laws instead of waiting for justice to be realized through the judicial system.
Save your time!
We can take care of your essay
- Proper editing and formatting
- Free revision, title page, and bibliography
- Flexible prices and money-back guarantee
Relating Dr. King’s statement with Tom Tyler’s views on matters concerning legal issues, they both have similar views on what entails just and unjust laws. According to Tyler, people should follow the law based on an individual’s belief of what is right and wrong (Tyler, 2006). He adds that a just law is what aligns with societal moral expectations. Therefore, people should condemn any law that acts against societal moral beliefs. Also, Dr. King’s letter on the issue of just and unjust laws gain support from the legal framework governing Hawaii Cockfighting. From this scenario, an unjust law is what all people agree to be wrong. For example, although people feel that it is unfair to criminalize cockfighting, they abide by regulations bestowed by the court (Young, 2016). People never resist once caught, meaning that they agree on the governing rules despite having not put them on record.
People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), was a criminal case involving Turner and Channel Miller. Turner, a student at Stanford University, was convicted with five accounts of sexually assaulting Jane Doe on 18th January 2015. Block Turner was a passionate swimmer and he had enrolled in a scholarship for swimming at the university. Emily, on the other hand, was 22 years old during the incident and an alumnus of a different college (Palo Alto Online, 2015). The two were partying at the Santa Clara County Bar and had never met one another. Unfortunately, the plaintiff had drunk excessively to the extent of becoming unconscious. Turner took advantage of Emily’s unconsciousness and assaulted her sexually. He was caught in the act by Carl-Fredrik and Peter Johnson, who seized him until the authority arrived (Palo Alto Online, 2015). On the other end, Emily was taken to the hospital, and that is where she regained consciousness. After the arrest, Turner was unconfined the same day with cash bail. On the date of the first trial, 2nd February 2015, Turner was charged with five indicts: one for rape attempt, two for sexual assaults, and two for rape, but pleaded not guilty. During the second trial, 30th March 2015, the courts made its verdict based on three account charges: assault with intent to commit rape to an intoxicated person, penetration of an intoxicated person, and penetrating of an unconscious person (Palo Alto Online, 2015). Aaron Persky, the ruling judge, sentenced Mr. Turner to a six-month jail term and three years of probation. Further, he was to register as a sex offender throughout his life and had to undertake a rehabilitation program for sex offenders. Unfortunately, Persky’s decision was received with criticism from the public, arguing that the verdict was trivial for a sexual assault and depicted gender bias against women, and, at the same time, denied justice to less privileged.
After a detailed evaluation of the case, stand that justice was never served accordingly. First, it is wrong to rape someone, either male or female. Relating the case to natural law, Block Turner had committed a felony. According to Aristotle’s teachings, natural law is an unalterable moral principle that governs people’s conduct (Finnis, 2017). In other words, it is a kind of universal law that everyone needs to follow. In this case, every sober-minded person knows that raping is an immoral act. Raping relates to dehumanizing an individual, something that is immoral according to natural law. Therefore, the victim must be punished. Mr. Turner knew his action was immoral; the reason he tried to run after Carl-Fredrik and Peter Johnson intervened. Besides, he took advantage of the victim while she was drunk and unconscious. The happening of events indicates that Turner was aware of what he was doing, and it was immoral. Thus, he deserved a punishment corresponding to the act.
Also, integrating the theory of legal positivism in the case shows that justice was never served in the court. According to theorists, such as Lon Fuller, the law is equivalent to morality (Bix, 2017). Contrary to natural law, legal positivism is centered on created norms and regulations by the legislator act as case law or common law. In other words, an action is judged based on the framed norms and morals rather than on humanity or justice (Bix, 2017). However, under legal positivism, everyone is supposed to abide by the set rules, failure to which they are punishable by the law. Under legal positivism, raping is against the governing rules, and the victim is liable to face disciplinary charges. Therefore, Turner’s action was morally wrong based on natural law; the act was illegal under legal positivism and deserved a huge penalty. The court denied Jane Doe justice the first time they released the defendant on cash bail. Besides, sentencing him to only six months was injustice in relation to the crime committed.
Further, basing the explained case on the concept of legal realism, it is with no doubt that the justice served was limited. Legal realism is the argument that jurisprudence should act in response to natural sciences, where empirical evidence is used in determining a court case (Medushevsky, 2018). According to Roscoe Pound, Alfred Ross, and Oliver Wendell in their study about legal philosophy, the law should be framed through a scientific method, which involves the collection of evidence to enhance the logical result, and, at the same time, ensure justice is served (Medushevsky, 2018). Legal realism strives to wipe out cases of political, financial, or social influences while making a verdict. Relating the argument to the examined case, the judicial system failed to preserve justice. First, despite the evidence presented after the arrest, the court released Turner on a cash bail amounting to $15, 0000. In this case, the economic factor acted as an influential power, something that should not have happened based on the action committed. Besides, the jail term was short for a person convicted of rape. There was enough evidence that Turner was a threat to society as he was even doing drugs (Palo Alto Online, 2015). Therefore, the judge was supposed to use all the evidence and give a reasonable and deserving charge.
Besides, based on past legal cases concerning sexual assaults, charges imposed by the judge were undeserving. When marking verdicts, judges are supposed to be guided by decisions made in the past on a similar case. It is at this point the theory of stare decisis gets its application. The approach requires courts to be guided by standards set in previous cases (Anderlini, Felli & Riboni, 2014). The system gives judges a predictable and dependable development of legal morality. In other words, judges are in a position to decide a verdict easily since a similar case has been presented in the court (Anderlini, Felli & Riboni, 2014). Doing this ensures that justice is served and every. Unfortunately, in the court in the People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner (2015), case judge Aaron Persky never referred to any legal proceedings that have happened in the past based on sexual assault. Contrary, the decision made was grounded on the evidence presented before the court.
Arguing the case in correlation to functionalism theory, justice was underserved in Brock Turner's sexual assault case. Under the legal theory, functionalism examines lawful conduct by assessing the functions of the judicial system (Morgenthau, 2017). According to function theory, a sound legal system is one that expresses actions that satisfy the presented tests. In other words, the court should act in response to laws and moral regulations that serve its people (Morgenthau, 2017). Therefore, basing the argument on functionalism theory, the court is supposed to protect its people by rendering justice. Sexual assault is morally wrong within the judicial system, and the offender must face charges that reflect such an action. Unfortunately, the court failed to execute its functions as expected. Although Turner was imprisoned, the term of service was short. He had raped a woman in an unconscious mind, an act that framed him as a threat to society. Also, releasing the defendant on cash bail, the same day he was arrested, showed incompetence in the judicial system and failure to meet its legal functionality.
Finally, relating the case with conflict theory indicates that justice was not served to the fullest. In the legal system, conflict theory stands that the court is biased and intended to protect the affluent (Petrocelli, Piquero & Smith, 2003). The theory holds that the criminal justice system should work effortlessly to ensure that justice is served. However, sometimes judges are influenced by material things, hence making the wrong decision knowingly. Besides, aspects of race, ethnicity, and gender play a part in shaping verdicts made by judges (Petrocelli, Piquero & Smith, 2003). In Brock Turner's sexual assault case, aspects of race and wealth seem to have played a part in influencing the court decision. First, the victim was a female, and the decision made could have been based on gender bias. Also, the defendant's father seems to be a wealthy man in reflection of the cash bail he posted to get his son released on the day of arrest. From these remarks and considering the kind of crime committed, Jane Doe never received due justice.
After the evaluation of different sociological theories related to the legal system, courts are obliged to offer justice to society. As Dr. King stated, injustice is a threat to justice. Justice requires doing what is morally right. Judges should employ all sociological theories, such as natural law, legal positivism, and legal realism, among others, to ensure justice is served. Arguing the presented case based on the examined theories, Jane Doe was not served with justice. The defendant was imprisoned for only 6 months a sentence but was released 3 months earlier. Brock Turner only served 3 months for raping an unconscious woman and if that doesn’t prove gender bias, a wealth gap, and race play a huge role in law we have huge problems heading our way. His sentence was short and incomparable with the crime he committed. Also, the court allowed gender bias to play its cause, and this resulted in an unfair decision. Undoubtedly, the verdict imposed by the judge on the People of the State of California v. Brock Allen Turner's (2015) case never promoted justice based on the sociological framework.
References
- Anderlini, L., Felli, L., & Riboni, A. (2014). Why Stare Decisis? Review of Economic Dynamics, 17(4), 726-738.
- Bix, B. (2017). On the dividing line between natural law theory and legal positivism. In Law and Morality (pp. 49-60). Routledge.
- Finnis, J. (2017). Liberalism and Natural Law Theory. In Thomas Aquinas (pp. 139-156). Routledge.
- King Jr, M. L. (1964). Letter from Birmingham Jail. Liberating Faith: Religious voices for justice, peace, & ecological wisdom, 177-187.
- Medushevsky, A. N. (2018). Law and Social Constructivism: The Russian School of the Legal Realism Reexamined. In Russian Legal Realism (pp. 37-65). Springer, Cham.
- Morgenthau, H. J. (2017). Positivism, functionalism, and international law. In The Nature of International Law (pp. 159-184). Routledge.
- Palo Alto Online. (2015). People’s Sentencing Memorandum: People v. Block Allen Turner: Paloaltoonline.RetrievedFrom
- Petrocelli, M., Piquero, A. R., & Smith, M. R. (2003). Conflict theory and racial profiling: An empirical analysis of police traffic stop data. Journal of criminal justice, 31(1), 1-11.
- Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why do people obey the law? Princeton University Press.
- Young, K. M. (2016). Criminal Behavior as an Expression of Identity and a Form of Resistance: The Sociolegal Significance of the Hawaiian Cockfight. Calif. L. Rev., 104, 1159.
Stuck on your essay?
