Some time back, it was some quirk of fate I chanced upon two of the greatest courtroom dramas on the same day. Judgment at Nuremberg and To Kill a Mocking Bird. Both pose problems, beg for solutions that strain one’s sense of Justice.
Gets you to wonder, what is the essential character of ‘Justice’? Can logic ever do ‘justice’ to Justice? Beyond the sense of right and wrong within a social context, when confronted to explain ‘the why’ behind a dilemma…. to interpret the Law of the land without losing its spirit and purpose can be quite daunting …and perhaps, that is why, reading or seeing some landmark judgments can sometimes be so rewarding an experience.
Talking about Justice, I have often wondered, in spite of the Penal Code and the Constitution to refer to as the bibles, whenever you visit a lawyer’s office, you see tons of volumes stacked against the walls…compilations of previous rulings, judgments passed in the country. Why are they all compiled and distributed like some body of knowledge? In all my years I was to believe science was perhaps the hardest to figure out. But I guess, I couldn’t be more wrong. These movies made me realize, the challenge of a solution to a mathematical problem or anything technical, pales in comparison to the deduction of the right verdict to a judicial dilemma. Come to think of it, you really don’t need more than a text to expound the fundamentals of physics.
Imagine. To sit in judgment of fellow human beings! To interpret the law without losing its purpose and spirit warrants the highest faculties and the finest of balance known to mankind. Every case is unique in its time and social context. Poses new questions. The great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes once said “The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” Indeed, it is to be judged in totality. It cannot be cut up, analyzed in parts.
Oliver Holmes also remarked “This responsibility (i.e. sense of justice) will not be found only in documents that no one contests or denies. It will be found in considerations of a political or social nature. It will be found most of all, in the character of men”
Justice found in irrefutable documental evidence is plain and straightforward. Like science. But cases with nothing tangible to relate to and with no precedence, demands the highest character of men. Interestingly, all human beings are blessed with an innate sense of Justice. Maybe, the judges, with all their conditioning, lose the humane touch of the layman. Is that why the Americans still have the Jury System. (Interestingly, Indians banned Jury Trials after the famous Nanavati trial where, perhaps, the layman was swayed too well by emotions). So then, should heart or the brain determine the Justice. Or both?
Again, what would you define as the threshold for finding an act or person guilty? Is there a threshold? The more you think of it, the more you are fascinated by fragileness. In fact, we realize that we do need, all the cumulative knowledge and wisdom we can gather, of our forefathers, their previous rulings. One man cannot possibly possess or fathom the wisdom nor the intelligence to solve everything, every time. It can only be cumulative. Built upon.
Issac Newton is said to have remarked “…If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
Nothing could be more true than in the case of Jurisprudence.
Hmmm…and that perhaps explains those volumes of rulings stacked against the walls of every lawyer’s room.
Gets you to wonder, what is the essential character of ‘Justice’? Can logic ever do ‘justice’ to Justice? Beyond the sense of right and wrong within a social context, when confronted to explain ‘the why’ behind a dilemma…. to interpret the Law of the land without losing its spirit and purpose can be quite daunting …and perhaps, that is why, reading or seeing some landmark judgments can sometimes be so rewarding an experience.
Talking about Justice, I have often wondered, in spite of the Penal Code and the Constitution to refer to as the bibles, whenever you visit a lawyer’s office, you see tons of volumes stacked against the walls…compilations of previous rulings, judgments passed in the country. Why are they all compiled and distributed like some body of knowledge? In all my years I was to believe science was perhaps the hardest to figure out. But I guess, I couldn’t be more wrong. These movies made me realize, the challenge of a solution to a mathematical problem or anything technical, pales in comparison to the deduction of the right verdict to a judicial dilemma. Come to think of it, you really don’t need more than a text to expound the fundamentals of physics.
Imagine. To sit in judgment of fellow human beings! To interpret the law without losing its purpose and spirit warrants the highest faculties and the finest of balance known to mankind. Every case is unique in its time and social context. Poses new questions. The great American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes once said “The character of every act depends upon the circumstances in which it is done.” Indeed, it is to be judged in totality. It cannot be cut up, analyzed in parts.
Oliver Holmes also remarked “This responsibility (i.e. sense of justice) will not be found only in documents that no one contests or denies. It will be found in considerations of a political or social nature. It will be found most of all, in the character of men”
Justice found in irrefutable documental evidence is plain and straightforward. Like science. But cases with nothing tangible to relate to and with no precedence, demands the highest character of men. Interestingly, all human beings are blessed with an innate sense of Justice. Maybe, the judges, with all their conditioning, lose the humane touch of the layman. Is that why the Americans still have the Jury System. (Interestingly, Indians banned Jury Trials after the famous Nanavati trial where, perhaps, the layman was swayed too well by emotions). So then, should heart or the brain determine the Justice. Or both?
Again, what would you define as the threshold for finding an act or person guilty? Is there a threshold? The more you think of it, the more you are fascinated by fragileness. In fact, we realize that we do need, all the cumulative knowledge and wisdom we can gather, of our forefathers, their previous rulings. One man cannot possibly possess or fathom the wisdom nor the intelligence to solve everything, every time. It can only be cumulative. Built upon.
Issac Newton is said to have remarked “…If I have seen a little further it is by standing on the shoulders of Giants.”
Nothing could be more true than in the case of Jurisprudence.
Hmmm…and that perhaps explains those volumes of rulings stacked against the walls of every lawyer’s room.
Comments
Post a Comment