Justice and Justification

Justice and Justification

These two words are very similar; indeed, they both derive from the Latin justus. For “just” the OED gives “morally right or fair” and “well founded” in application to opinion. For “justify” we get “prove to be right or reasonable” and “be a good reason for”. A legal ruling can be just and so can a belief. Obviously, the concept of justice is closely tied to the concept of justification; in fact, a just verdict or ruling is precisely one that is justified (an unjust ruling is one that is unjustified). A justified ruling is one that is based on good evidence and sound argument—facts and logic. It is well reasoned and factually based; it is not poorly reasoned and based on rumor or superstition or other sources of error. We might say that justice is based on knowledge—true justified belief. It isn’t just a matter of conjecture or opinion or prejudice. Thus, the law is much concerned with truth (all of it and nothing but it). Accordingly, judges and jurors must be impartial, objective, and unbiased. They must arrive at the truth by rational procedures. The law is an epistemological enterprise—knowledge-seeking, truth-oriented, evidence-based, justification-bound. In this it resembles science (not religion or politics or bird-fancying). We might say the law is the science of judicial verdicts; more simply, the science of punishment (the act). The legal method is like the scientific method. A judge is like a scientist, intellectually speaking: he or she weighs evidence and evaluates arguments. The concept of reasonable doubt applies in both cases.

It is worth bearing this analogy in mind when considering what is called due process of law. This phrase can seem like an arcane construct dreamt up in law schools; it isn’t entirely clear what it means as a piece of English. A lot of people don’t understand it. But it is really very obvious as a principle of law: it just means that judicial decisions must be justified, i.e., established by a procedure that ensures truth and knowledge of truth. Such decisions must not be based on conjecture, rumor, mere accusation, prejudice. You can’t know someone is guilty of a crime without being able to justify that verdict. This is basic epistemology, applicable to science as well as law. If you arrive at a scientific belief “without due process of science”, you will be called to account and suffer consequences; if you find a person guilty of a crime “without due process of law”, you will be similarly condemned. In both cases the justification condition has not been met, delinquently so. There is nothing technical or dispensable here: it follows from the very nature of science and law. Justice requires justification—this is virtually analytic. Both science and law recognize the existence of error: humans are fallible, and we must do our best to exclude this from our conclusions. Hence, due process—doing what needs to be done to rule out error. You should not imprison a person without justification. You should not arrive a scientific belief without justification. This is obvious and indisputable.

The affinity between science and law is manifest in the language of both: evidence, law, discovery, judgement, objection, fact, truth, truthfulness, argument, proof, doubt, reasonable, probative. There is a family resemblance here. Which came first? Probably law, which goes back well before what we now call science. Perhaps science (natural philosophy) drew its vocabulary from law, along with its insistence on certain methods of arriving at the truth. The two are spiritually akin. Politically, too, they tend to be joined, because both are the natural enemy of the dictator. They both uphold the truth, even when the truth doesn’t serve the interests of the dictator (justification is a dirty word to him). Thus, the would-be dictator attempts to cripple or destroy the legal system and the university system: that is, he attempts to eliminate the “truth system”. Judges and professors become prime targets. Both are politically dangerous to the dictator (the military is dangerous for a different reason, viz. its raw power). Limiting free speech is the obvious first move—don’t allow the truth come out. The law and science (I include philosophy) are domains in which justification is the supreme value, but justification is not what the dictator wants—he wants unjustified power. Democracy and justification (due process) go hand in hand. A politically healthy society is an epistemologically healthy one.