Social Responsibility and Justice

Continuation of the article, followed by the letters:

Witness Lord Wolff's recent defence of the release of the killers of 4-year-old James Bulger. Lord Wolff stated that the youths involved, aged 10 at the time of the crime, were worthy of release at age 19. The Lord, a man with a highly distinguished career, justified their release on the grounds that serving any longer time in prison would 'serve no useful purpose.' Of course, the eminent Lord expressed his fervent hope that 'nothing would go wrong.' Wonderful.

The obvious result of the above item, and indeed many others that space in this article would not allow -- and could probably fill a database -- is that no one has confidence in the justice system.  Now, Home Secretary David Blunkett has initiated reforms that will allow abuses to be addressed. The proposed elimination of double jeopardy, for example, would allow the retrial of emotionally charged cases such as the murders of Stephen Lawrence several years ago, and Damilola Taylor more recently. However, these actions, while commendable, fail to deal with key issues causing public discontent with the justice system.

What is the problem with the justice system? Why is there no confidence? This crisis has resulted because the justice system is overly focused on traditions such as precedence in the Common Law world and codification in the Civil legal system. What is missing is an emphasis on social responsibility. Many other legal traditions, for example the Aboriginal (First Nations) system in Canada, place emphasis on social responsibility. Yet such concern does not seem to penetrate Western legal systems. Hence the legal community is satisfied that the right actions are taken, ignoring public discontent with the operation of the legal system.

What is meant by social responsibility? Social responsibility involves taking into account the needs of society; the damage to society of the crime; and the impact of any decision on the fabric of that society. The health of the society is paramount. Note, that does not mean that society can trample on individual rights -- that would only negate any social purpose.  Rather, it means that individual rights can exist up to the point where society becomes threatened. That does not mean social change cannot occur -- since social change is healthy and reflects a vibrancy in that society. Again, it means that society cannot be taken advantage of, in particular for ulterior purposes.

If social responsibility does not become an important consideration in the justice system, then the bleeding of public confidence will continue -- and that will serve neither the justice system nor society.

Brian Risman

Go to the Letters