The law in the fostering of harmonious existence in society
Introduction
One of the key objectives of the law is the fostering of harmonious existence in society. However, there has always been an aspect of morality in the face of consequences for disobedience. The general perception of the society and even the key legislators are “punishment upon disobedience.” Moral grounds of punishing those who disobey laws out of conscience have always been significant areas of controversy both in the common law and state legal systems. The primary argument of the propagator of punishment as a mode of handling disobedience has been that those who disobey the law are likely to be “role models” for others in society. Such people are, therefore, expected to spread “anarchism” in society and its eventual malfunctioning in the long term. On the other hand, there are legislators such as Dworkin who believe that whereas punishment of disobedience is morally justified, it may not be legally justified.
Dworkin three options in the face of dubious constitutionality
The controversy between the two schools of thought discussed above lead Dworkin to propose three possibilities that a citizen should consider when faced with the dilemma of handling the disobedience controversy.
In the first possibility, he discusses the philosophical question of doubtful law. He analyzes the scenario where the law under question is doubtful, meaning that its clarity, as well as objectiveness, are to an extend vaguely. In such a situation, such a law leaves the gap for a rational citizen to choose whether to obey or disobey. Such a person can, therefore, act out of their own consciousness. The best option, however, would be the obedience of the law and the enforcing authorities. This is irrespective of whether they think that such laws are right or wrong. In the process of such obedience and submission to the law, they can work through such mechanisms as political negotiation to foster reforms in the doubtful law and creation of more concrete laws that are more sensible. This approach is, however, mainly being a weak approach as it merely submits the citizens into the obedience of the law that they first and foremost clearly understand its doubtful and hence baseless.
In the second possibility, Dworkin proposes that in the face of a doubtful law, one is responsible for their own choices. Therefore, a citizen is at his or her own discretion to choose the best course of action. As such, he has the freedom to weigh if such a law is better obeyed or disobeyed and which of the two alternatives yields a greater good and lesser evil. An individual, in that case, can, therefore, act out of their inner consciousness up to a point where the implanting authority of the clarifies on the best course of action in the prima facie of a case involving such a law. Incase such an authority rules against his actions, then it is only from that point on he must comply with the ruling despite his or prior discretion on the law. However, this does not imply that such a decision is final. The individual can seek a further interpretation of the matter from a higher authority to clear out the doubts that they might have on the matter. If the highest law implementing authority (for instance, the supreme court in the United States) still affirms such a decision, then the individual can choose the third possibility.
In the third possibility, Dworkin states that in the face of doubts law, a person may follow their judgment despite the highest implanting bodies having taken a contrary decision. However, in such cases he must also take into consideration the ruling of the most upper implementing body such as the court into account such a ruling even when he is making his judgment as it is not only reasonable to do so but also a way of been honest with oneself in making their own choices in the face of the law-whether to obey or disobey. This possibility greatly relies on the precedence doctrine that simply provides an option for the courts to overrule existing laws depending on the weight of the matter under consideration.
According to Dworkin, the fairest of the three possibilities is the third option. This is because it leaves room for one’s social duty in society. Whether the citizens choose to obey or disobey; therefore, it’s all about their allegiance to the law and not any particular institution or a person. Decisions of such an individual, therefore, are heavily dependent on their reasonable views of how things ought to be done for the greater good of society.
The case or controversy requirement
Conflicting claims of individuals must be brought to the law implementing the body for resolution. Therefore, if the court is to exercise its jurisdiction to consider the questions and provide relief. Failure to comply with the law can be morally justified but, to a great extent, has serious legal repercussions. The great controversy, therefore, lies in the individual justification and definition of what is truly right or wrong. Obedience or disobedience, therefore, largely depends on what each person terms to be “morally right” or otherwise for the “greater good and lesser evil” to the society. The essence of the law is the creation of equality in the societal code of conduct. Dworkin, therefore, challenges the school of thought that imposes the idea of punishing disobedience by asking them to provide proof that “a case “supersedes controversy in the question of one’s own interpretation and discretion of the law.
Allegiance to the law vs. supreme court ordinances
By the statement, “A citizen’s allegiance is to the law, not to any particular person’s view of what the law is..” Dworkin means that when a person is faced with the dilemma of obeying or disobeying the law, he or she is likely not to base their choices on the court interpretation of such a law but on their discretion of what is the best available alternatives. As a matter of fact, the doctrine of precedent proves this point. This statement, therefore, does not mean that Dworkin is undermining the supremacy of the supreme court, as a matter of fact, he affirms that people do not primarily obey the law due to fear of punishment. On the contrary, people obey because they understand the essence of the law and the role it plays in shaping a functional and orderly society.
However, looking at this statement from a different interpretation, it could also mean that there is little essence for the existence of the supreme courts. This is because irrespective of various court decisions, people will mostly follow their natural intrusions and not necessarily court ordinances.