Justice vs. the Law

When a boy dies in a shooting it is tragic. That Trayvon Martin’s death is terribly sad is given, and there is no one in the country who doesn’t wish that somehow it could be undone. It is not for the President to assert some sense of relations with the boy; it is for all of us. As John Donne observed, “Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee,” and in a real sense it is a personal loss for all of us.

At the same time there are calls for ‘Justice.’ And that is to be anticipated from his family. Families, caught up in the emotion that accompanies such a tragic event will call for justice. But for everyone else we should, we must resist that concept. That of course, sounds wrong. Why should be not seek justice? But, as Justice O.W. Holmes said, in reproving Judge Learned Hand, who had called on Holmes to “Do Justice:” “That is not my job. It is my job to apply the law.”

The courts must determine what happens to Mr. Zimmerman according to the law, as it is written. The court must ascertain the facts and then apply the law. If the people do not feel, after the facts are reviewed and the law is applied, that justice has been done, then the Congress and the President can – as Justice Holmes noted – seek to change the law and more closely approximate moral justice with the law. But our requirement now must be to let our system work and see how the law plays out.

As for those who are now calling for changes in the law, prior to the finding of facts, it would be best to remember some other words from John Adams, who uttered them while engaged in defending some wildly unpopular individuals from charges of murder, to wit his defense of the British soldiers following the Boston Massacre:

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

We are indeed a nation of laws, not men. Let the legal system conduct an investigation and let us see how the situation is resolved. Then, following the precepts of the law, if the facts and the results are deemed insufficient for future purposes, we can calmly and intelligently pursue the changing of the law. But no good comes of circumventing the law or of trying to change the law to address our sensibilities while in the throes of passion.