The Law's Ass
Created | Updated Aug 12, 2004
This was something that was clearly on display recently when artist Banksy decided to depict the historic figure of Justice in thigh-high boots and suspenders. For the full story see
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3537136.stm
It shouldn't be allowed
Or should it? Let's just look at why someone would produce something as deliberately provocative as this statue. If you read the BBC piece you will see that the artist is making a satirical statement again an erroneous conviction and a general statement in opposition to a legal system that he considers to be corrupt.
I say, GREAT! Why shouldn't an individual be free to make this sort of statement. We are told that we live in a democracy and that we have many freedoms which we exercise daily. The reality is that live in a legal system of residual rights. You can only do what it is lawful to do after the legislature have taken away what they don't want you to do.
One of the greatest freedoms, however, that has not been taken away (and is even now enshrined in the law itself) is freedom of expression. I applaud anyone who uses this non-violent method of making any point they want.
The Paradox Issue
The problem that people like Banksy have is that their first general premise is flawed. They work from the assumption that, amongst other things, the law is corrupt, flawed and unsound. Here I have to disagree.
As an immediate example I would recommend looking at the Legal System of, say, Chile in the early 1970's or the Soviet Union during the Cold War. These so-called judicial systems removed, by force artists, authors, poets and many other people simply because their ideology did not match with that of the government at the time. No trial. No appeal. These people just disappeared and often were murdered by the state.
I am pleased and relieved (as, no doubt is everyone else) that these practices are not nor have they ever been carried out in the United Kingdom.
The Paradox is, therefore, that we actually, in law, protect the right of the individual to make statements like Banksy's sculpture of Justice. We protect the right of the individual to disagree with the government and the legal system. It is ironic as well as a paradox that satire is called upon the very principle that protects the satyrist
The Sweeping Statements
Let me quote Voltaire,
"I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."
It's all well and good saying that someone was wrongfully imprisoned and complaining about the judicial system but consider these points
- What has the complainer ever done to correct the "miscarriage"
- That is why we have an appeals system
- Better to wrongfully imprison an inncoent man than hang him
- Those wrongfully imprisoned are compensated
Now I appreciate that seems a bit blunt and that people who are wrongfully imprisoned lose chunks of the lives but I phrase it in this way simply to make clear that there are checks and balances within our system to protect anyone accused of a crime. Perhaps the greatest of these is "Innocent Until Proven Guilty". The burden of proof falls on the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused did it.
If you think this is a universal truth, look at France where it's "Guilty Until Proven Innocent"
As for corruption and the like - let's be a bit more specific shall we. Sweeping statements like that don't help anyone. If you've got a case make or, quite frankly, belt up. I accept there is no direct suggestion of this in Banksy's statement but I can't help feeling that the odour of it is there.
Where do we go from here?
The question is, of course, "What do you want?" Everyone must have freedoms and rights but they must be policed. That means laws and that means lawyers and judges.
I think people forget that lawyers and judges are human and subject to the same temptations, emotions and other symptoms of the Human Condition. It's just that, on most occasions they're better at putting it to one side than most other people.
If you want draconian justice, live in a totalitarian state. If you want to have your rights and express them then choose a democracy. Just rememeber that Democracy comes at a price. The price is that occasionally, mistakes are made and that those freedoms are to some lesser degree controlled.
My thanks go to Caractacus for pointing out the news item upon which this article is based.
