Defending People points to this comment on a post from Ann Althouse:

One of the most annoying things about lawyers is the way they casually conflate “law” with “justice.” To clarify: justice is a concept in philosophy; also to some extent in psychology, sociology, economics, etc. Law is what a bunch of mostly long-dead politicians thought would get them reelected. There’s no connection between the two. None. The relation between law and those other fields is much like the relation between astrology and astronomy…except that astrologers don’t have guns.

Mark Bennett, the poster on Defending People, comments simply, “Perfect.”

Eh, I don’t know.

As someone with the status just above armchair philosopher (disclosure: I will be attending graduate school for a PhD in philosophy in the fall), I have a few words on that one.

The idea that “justice” has no relationship to the law – and the poster is very clear that they believe this – is, I think, obviously mistaken. This is what they say:

1) Justice is a topic that exists in philosophy.
2) Law is what a bunch of mostly long-dead politicians thought would get them elected.
3) Never the twain shall meet.

Here are the missing premises.

1) Justice is a topic that exists in philosophy.
2) The public, with whatever understanding of philosophy they have, combined with their upbringing and social mores, have formed concepts of justice for themselves.
3) A voter’s support for a politician is proportional to their belief that the politician is like them, or will enact policies that see their beliefs fulfilled.
4) The more a politician’s ostensible definition of justice falls in line with a voter’s the more likely that voter is to support that politician, other things being equal.
5) Politicians act in ways they believe will get them elected.
6) Politicians mimic what they believe is the public conception of justice when they enact laws because they believe it will get them re-elected.
7) Laws come to resemble the public conception of what justice is.

Finally, which should be a premise between my (2) and (3) above: as much as philosophers like to think they’ve got it figured out – though they are often quick to point out that they know nothing – you might be surprised at how much philosophical conceptions of justice are either informed by or in line with public conceptions. Justice is treating others fairly. Justice is giving each person their due. Justice is having what one deserves. It is for philosophers to unpack somewhat vague notions like these, but they certainly start with premises everyday people are likely to believe, and oftentimes end up not very far away.

There are not two mutually exclusive conceptions of justice that have no connection or relation to one another. Honestly.

Related posts:

1. Not a Good Week for Criminal Justice News in Mississippi To date, the state of Mississippi has exonerated only one person through DNA testing. The following are some excerpts from...
2. Navigating the criminal justice system Some time ago, Change.org’s blog for Criminal Justice posted this diagram, which shows the process a defendant can take through...
3. Criminal Justice 2.0 Gathering information about the criminal justice system is becoming easier and more interactive. This article from the Criminal Justice blog...
4. Criminal justice and Obama White House We blogged earlier, on the day of the inauguration, about Obama’s plans to reform the criminal justice system. Today, SentLaw noticed...
5. Justice Department to Review DNA Test Waivers During the Bush administration, a policy was passed requiring some federal defendants to abandon their right to DNA testing, mainly...
6. Two more criminal justice documentaries In response to my previous post about two documentaries about the prison system in America and in Argentina, my colleague...