Thoughts on Holmes

“The Path of the Law” had some very interesting points concerning the distinction between the law and morality, though two stand out in my mind: The “bad” man and the human side of the law. The bad man scenario starts on page 3 (pg 992 of the document) and goes into how a morally corrupt man has every reason to want to understand the law and obey it as a morally righteous one. This plays well into the idea that a person can use the law to their advantage, as well as maintain malicious habits while still raising no qualms with the legal system. The second point begins on Page 5 (994 of the text), but also echoes throughout the rest of the paper. This point emphasizes how lawyers are not enforcers of the law, but rather guided interpreters and “prophets” of the law. It is the lawyer’s job to predict how the court will react to and rule a certain case, as well as how to influence those reactions and rulings. This point plays off of the idea that these laws are not mechanical or objective, but rather malleable depending on the people involved. Psychological studies have shown how certain people receive “unfair” treatment because of their race, gender, income, education, lingual abilities, or religion. It is also true that juries and judges can be influenced by the emotional testimonies that are presented in court. All in all, the separation of morality and law, as well as remembering the human interpretation that goes into ruling legal matters, are important factors to keep in mind when discussing the philosophy of law.