Laws

What makes a law unjust? How can people deal with laws they believe to be unjust? These sorts of questions have been present in certain circles since laws themselves have existed, even if the exact wording may have changed. Throughout history, we can see the effects of disagreements over whether or not, and if so how, certain laws should be enforced. Laws, by definition, are sets of rules that are meant to guarantee the safety and interests of all who must follow them. Laws are unjust whenever they become a tool of unjust power for a group to exert strength over the disenfranchised. People have a right to rectify these issues. Exactly how either of these take place will be covered in this essay.

In 1948, the National Party came to power in South Africa. This was the result of a general election that largely excluded Blacks, Coloreds, and Indians from the vote. The subsequent National Party government, headed by Daniël François Malan, proceeded to enact a series of racialized restrictions on civil rights, known then as it is now as Apartheid, or separation. This leads to my first point on unjust laws: laws can only be just if all parties involved have some way to influence its contents and enforcement. Even for laws such as murder, there can still be input from the accused; perhaps they can argue that the witnesses were unreliable, or that the evidence against them was circumstantial. For such a series of laws like Apartheid, there was no opportunity for the groups in question to defend themselves. This was because it stripped even the basic right to demand change away from them, and doing so put them at peril of imprisonment, torture, and death. Apartheid was dictated by a powerful minority over a powerless majority, and was thus an unjust law.

Another criteria which contributes to a law being unjust is if it is not enforced equally across all members of a society. In such a case, the group in charge, out of fear of their power being diluted, will seek to maintain control by over-enforcing laws on a particular group — thereby eroding the rights of groups with less political power. An example of this you can find in modern-day US drug enforcement, which can be argued is unjust because it disproportionately targets non-white communities. As stated by the ACLU, black people were more than 3x more likely to be arrested for cannabis possession than their white counterparts, despite the fact that per-capita cannabis usage was roughly equal between the two groups. There are plenty of issues in today’s world that are similar in nature. It could be argued that drug enforcement authorities have cause to arrest more black people, given that they are a higher per-capita share of the prison population. However, it’s worth noting that these sorts of issues are a large contributor to why this happens in the first place — people who are not arrested for the crimes they commit don’t get factored into these calculations. A large part of drug enforcement, and many other laws in today’s society, are thus unjust.

But when exactly is a law just? Simply because a law is not unjust doesn’t make it just; something not being wrong doesn’t make it right. There are a number of criteria that I have come up with to evaluate how just a law is, the first of which being that the law was created with all who might be affected by it in mind. Take modern-day prosecutions for murder cases, for example. In today’s courtroom, there is a large and ever-increasing amount of data points and viewpoints that are factored in when dealing with these kinds of cases. DNA evidence, phone records, medical history, and many other pieces of information are collected to give both the prosecution and the defense more material with which to work with. Appeal mechanisms are now much more developed, and the risk of mistreatment, though often sensationalized, has been on the decline. The requirements of evidence and witnesses are much more stringent now than they were before, and the punishments less hasty — the days of a man being hanged because one witness said he looked like the suspect are over. Laws surrounding murder are examples of just laws because the written law is fair to all parties and, if carried out correctly by the legal system, the enforcement is too.

Whenever you hear in the news about some heartwarming story involving police, you have to remind yourself that, for millions in this country, police carry the same sort of reputationas the internal security apparatus does in China or the Stasi does for East Germans: to them, they are simply unaccountable men (or women) with guns. The reason that perception exists is because police officers have historically been rendered significant amounts of protection for instances of misconduct. Qualified immunity and related policies have created significant breaches in justice across the board; many people abused by police never got the justice they deserved. Names such as Rodney King come to mind. Laws that are increasing police accountability, such as body camera regulations, are just laws, because they give the legal system better abilities to render justice. All citizens must follow the law, including police officers, the President, and everything in between.

That’s all well and good, but what can people do to ensure that laws are just? How should they approach unjust laws? There are a number of ways, first among them being to inform legislators about how the law impacts the people it does. It’s definitely a cheesy answer, but lawmakers care about reelection, and they have the obligation to serve their constituents. Plus, if it’s part of a larger movement, it can actually make a difference, and thousands of people calling about a specific issue/law isn’t anything to scoff at. Unfortunately, that approach often doesn’t work, especially if there isn’t a coherent body to coordinate it. All sorts of movements advocating for justice have realized this, and have taken to other, more forceful methods. Supporters of the Quit India movement of the 40s for instance undertook sabotage of colonial assets. The Sons of Liberty famously protested the Tea Act by dumping all of the aforementioned tea in the Boston Harbor, getting all the fish high. And, as said by Liu Xiaobo, my personal role-model: “For those of us in the opposition movement under dictatorships, part of our job is confronting police and spending time in prison. So, a dissident not only needs to learn how to oppose oppression but also how to face the crackdowns and time in prison.”

What makes a law unjust? How can people deal with laws they believe are unjust? I think I’ve answered those two questions pretty well. Laws exist to safeguard the rights and interests of all in our society. When a law is made without the consent of those who follow it, or is not enforced equally, then it is unjust, and, as St. Augustine says, no law at all. Just laws are only those which are fair to all parties and which improve the rendering of justice in some way, and a law not being unjust does not guarantee its place as a just law. Those who take action against these laws have a number of options, ranging from simple civil outreach and informing of lawmakers, to protests and strikes, to all-out rebellion against the government. These points, and more, cover all the aspects of an unjust law and actions people can take against them.

Back to index