Wednesday, March 4, 2015

Session 11: Constitutions, Morality and the Irony of Justice systems

       This reading for session 11 lays stress on the role of constitutions and judiciaries. The concept of constitutions is interesting to mull over because a constitution is basically thought of as vital for bringing order through an established set of rules in society. The very determination and effort invested in order to introduce constitutions in the past should be sufficient enough to show how valuable they have been perceived in history. The reading mentions the constitution created after the French revolution:  The Declaration of Rights of Man and the Citizen. This was highly significant in establishing a new train of thought after the enlightenment, that all ‘men are born equal and free.’ It’s highly intriguing to note that in this manner, constitutions serve as depictions of turning points in the histories of nations.
         I can’t help but think back to the concept of the social contract theory where that too was considered to be necessary to create a civilized order in society. Where there is debate as to whether the social contract theory actually stands as valid in today’s world, constitutions are not treated with the same level of disapproval as they are thought to be highly essential.
         Another aspect of this reading which caught my attention was the status of judges in America. I can’t help but think of how America may pride itself as being a country that has a strong justice system, but then again it doesn’t even offer prisoners in Guantanamo Bay (a US military prison) a right at fair trial. These prisoners are forced to suffer at the hands of inhumane torture techniques and a very disturbing practice: ‘force feeding’.
          Furthermore, I was even drawn towards the example of the abuse of judicial power by Stalin when he used his ‘show trials.’ These were basically scripted and aimed to make it seem like the accused were being offered a chance to explain themselves when they were clearly not. This to me seems to be a major example of how judges are influenced by political pressure. In this example, they were clearly puppets being controlled by Stalin.
         The section on law and morality proved as interesting because I’ve been tormented by this very notion of law not going hand in hand with morality whenever I’ve considered law as a profession. I’ve basically been told that there are shades of gray involved and that lawyers don’t exactly lie but just showcase various possibilities even when they do defend the culprit and that is an idea that still proves to be unsettling.
The following links can be used for the verification of facts:



No comments: