My fantastic (and I use this in two senses of the word) is now out. As I was too ill to do a proper launch, I've set the 13th as an arbitrary, but hopefully lucky, day to have an official launch. Between now and then, I will be posting all kinds of weird and interesting (I hope) snippets about me as a writer and my progress to writing the book, as well as boring things like how our present law came to be and how it's made. (the book is set in a law school so that's not entirely disconnected.)
Blurb
Morgan Bentley is a bastard. Matthew knows this absolutely—until he doesn’t.
Matthew and his friend Cory are thrilled to attend one of the most prestigious universities in the UK. On their pre-entry visit, they met Morgan Bentley and his stuck-up friends. Matthew takes an instant dislike to the arrogant, conceited, self-obsessed, beautiful, intelligent, and charismatic boy. Throughout the next year, Matthew harbours his dislike, never missing the opportunity to complain to his best friend, Cory, what a bastard Morgan is.
Then, an unexpected turn of events catapults Matthew, Morgan, and Cory into a nightmare, and all the things Cory had said about Matthew’s true feelings about Morgan come crashing down on his head, and he realises that what he thought was hatred and anger was, in fact, growing attraction and begrudging admiration. But when the deadly nature of the elusive Project X is revealed, it seems their budding romance is doomed before it begins, as one of them is unlikely to survive.
As I said, I will be posting about legal related issues and as a preliminary, I have some thoughts on the notions of truth and justice that I hope will make you think.
Truth
The two main characters in my new book Project X are law students, and the first half of the book is set in a university where they are studying law.
What can be more important to the study of law than getting to grips with the concepts of truth and justice, which are surely at the heart of our legal system?
Everyone thinks they know what these two words mean, but do they? And do the meanings remain the same from person to person, country to country, law to law? From a legal perspective, at least, neither are absolutes.
So, let’s take a look at what truth, isn’t or might be.
The Oxford Dictionary describes truth as – the quality or state of being true. They define true as – in accordance with fact and reality, and accurate and exact, and genuine.
Do you think you know what truth means, what it is?
Two hundred years ago most people would have told you it was an absolute truth the world was flat. What’s changed? Is truth defined by knowledge? Is science an absolute truth? Rules and hypotheses change all the time. Scientific ‘laws’ are constantly redefining themselves.
What about so-called ‘universal truths’ such as killing is wrong? It says so in the Bible, where it is literally written in stone. But is that really the truth, or at least the whole of the truth. For one thing who or what must we not kill? Animals? People? For the purposes of this post let’s assume we just mean people.
Thou shalt not kill…humans. This is an incontrovertible, universal truth. Or is it?
What about war? What about soldiers being taught to kill and/or maim other people. This is in direct contradiction to that primary commandment. But we have to kill them if they’re trying to kill us, right? Or might be trying to kill us. Or support those who are trying to kill us. Or are getting the way. Or have something we want. Going too far? Let’s reel it back.
In English law, murder is defined as – the unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another. What an interesting use of words. Murder isn’t the killing of one human being by another, but the unlawful killing of one human being by another. Presumably this is to justify capital punishment. But who decides when a universal truth, becomes a qualified truth, and what that truth will be? If murder without reason is wrong, who decides what the reasons are? Who has a right to?
Even those reasons change with time. We no longer hang people for stealing bread. In the UK we no longer murder people at all, for any reason, but in other countries, they do. In some countries they execute people for being gay, for example. So is truth defined by society?
What about observable truth. If you see it happen it must be true, right? Not so. Many social experiments have discovered that people perceive things differently. Given any particular situation, people perceive it in their own, unique way, describing objects, scenes and even people differently. So, is truth defined by perception?
What about something as simple as a book? Either it’s fiction or it’s not. Either the contents are true, or they aren’t. In any event, we can all agree that a book is a book, surely? What about the Bible? Some people believe it is a work of complete fiction, others believe it is absolute truth, while others believe it has some truth but is open to interpretation. Yet others believe is shouldn’t be called a book at all because it’s actually a disparate collection of writings, by different people, at different times, collected together and specifically chosen for their coherence to a theme. It is a collection of stories, contained in separate documents, scrolls, letters etc. Is the Bible an anthology? The abstract of a room full of scrolls? Is truth defined by belief?
In truth, there is probably no one answer to any questions, but they open the mind and focus it on one important aspect of legal study – everything is open to interpretation and challenge.
Law degrees, in general, are not concerned with the practicalities of working with the law on a day to day basis, but on the theories and concepts behind it. Our boys will be struggling with these concepts (or maybe not, especially in Morgan’s case), as well as the even more abstract theories of at what point does something you are doing become deliberate?
Justice
If there is no fixed definition of truth, what about
justice? Surely everyone knows what justice is. The Oxford dictionary defines
it as – the quality of being fair and reasonable. I won’t even go into a
discussion about the words ‘fair’ and ‘reasonable’. I’m sure you’ve got a fair
idea of how fixed and consistent they aren’t. Neither will I go into too much
detail as to what justice actually is, because I’ve done all the philosophising
above and I actually believe the reader has enough intelligence to be able to
see that everything said about truth could easily be applied to justice.
Instead I will take a look at how justice is applied. Surely that must be consistent,
right? We may not know precisely what justice is, but we know how to apply it
fairly.
According to the UK Legal System there are three main
methods of applying justice:-
Compensatory – satisfying a physical need
For example, in the laws of Hywel Dda of Wales, in the 10th
century, if someone killed a cat, it was a serious affair. In a rural farming
community cats were relied on to keep down the rat population. Rats ate grain
and could mean the difference between a family, or even a village, having enough
food to eat through the winter, or starving. In order to satisfy justice the
cat was hung up by its tail with its paws touching the ground. The person who
killed the cat had to pour grain over it until it was covered to the tip of the
tail. Laying aside whether you would want to eat grain that had been poured
over a dead cat, it at least meant you wouldn’t starve if rats got into your
grain.
In English law this type of justice is known as compensation
(money given to someone because of a loss they’ve suffered, for example if they’ve
been injured through someone else’s fault, or because they’ve had their things
taken away.) We don’t pour grain over dead cats anymore because we put a monetary
value on the grain/loss of the grain and pay that instead. This in itself can
bring plenty of interpretational problems. What do you get paid? The cost of
buying the grain (new or second hand)?
The actual loss suffered (the cost of
the grain that was eaten by rats)? Something to prevent the loss happening (the
price of a cat)?
Also under this heading is a type of justice known as
restitution, which is not about money, but replacement. For example, if you buy
shoes from a shop and they fall apart when you first wear them, you can take
them back and either have your money back (compensation) or replacement shoes
(restitution).
Punitive (punishment) – satisfying an emotional need
The victim of crime gains absolutely nothing quantifiable
from the punishment of the person who injured them (physically or
metaphorically). There is some weight to the argument that the punishment it to
‘teach the perpetrator a lesson’, so they will be discouraged from committing
similar crimes again. Unfortunately, studies show that this is not always the
case. The Ministry of Justice’s report of October 2018 shows re offending rates
of 40% for juveniles and up to 64% for adults. And what about capital
punishment? That teaches the perpetrator nothing, or if it does it’s irrelevant
because he isn’t going to be able to commit any crimes when he’s dead.
However, the main aim of punitive justice is to satisfy the
emotional, and unquantifiable need for justice, which in this case, effectively
amounts to revenge. The victim, and society as a whole gain nothing from it
other than a sense that justice has been done, and the satisfaction of knowing
‘he got what he deserved’.
The whole concept of punitive justice rests on the natural
human desire for revenge. But don’t people get jumpy when the word vendetta is
used! Not so very long ago vengeance ranked right up there with honour as a
reasonable right, to the point of justifiable murder of those who have wronged
you or your family. Vendetta takes on a different and more acceptable meaning
in some cultures, where it is still seen by some (although not the law, I have
to say) as a perfectly reasonable way to gain justice. Isn’t Batman on a
vendetta?
It might be worth noting that the word vendetta comes from
the Italian vindicta which stems from
the Latin vindicare, which is also
the stem for vindication.
Arbitrary – satisfying a social need
In this case, I use arbitrary not in the usual sense of ‘on
a whim or personal choice’ but in the context of arbitration. This is used in
cases where there is unlikely to be any clear winner or loser, and
theoretically no one is at fault. It is generally civil and not criminal law,
and is used to satisfy two competing needs.
Examples of arbitrary law include the laws relating to child
contact, employment law, equity and trusts etc.
In children proceedings, it is quite common for both
parents, or occasionally third parties, to have equal rights with regard to
children, and the court is not being asked to decide whether the rights exist,
but to choose which ones should take precedence, to best satisfy the needs of
the child – which of course are defined by society.
In Victorian times it was quite acceptable, and indeed
desirable, to physically chastise children. Right up until fairly recent times,
nothing was seen as wrong in older siblings, even quite young ones, taking care
of the little ones, to relieve the burden of the parent. It is still seen as
perfectly reasonable to send children to their room, or ground them. However,
all these things are now considered to be within the definition of emotional
abuse and/or neglect. I have personally been involved in cases where a child is
placed on the child protection register because parents shout at each other in
the presence of the child/ren.
In employment law there is often a conflict in the rights/needs
of the employer and the rights/needs of the employee and commercial arbitration
can be brought in to negotiate and arbitrate between the two. Before official
bodies such as A.C.A.S and laws requiring arbitration, this kind of negotiation
usually rested in the hands of the Trade Unions.
Often cases apply more than one of these models. For
example, people convicted of crimes can, in rare circumstances, be required to
pay compensation to those they have wronged. This is usually limited to
financial crimes. Community Service has elements of both punitive and
restitutional justice. Employment law can include arbitration and sanctions,
usually compensatory, against one party or the other (usually the employer)
I hope you’ve enjoyed, and maybe even learned something from
these thoughts – which are that and nothing more. If you have, stay tuned for
more thought-provoking posts between now and Monday.
