Young Man From the Piedmont: The Youth of Thomas Jefferson by Leonard Wibberley.
Wibberley places these words in the mouth of George Wythe, famous Virginia lawyer and Jefferson’s teacher and mentor:
“When a lawyer takes a case into court, Tom, he performs a service by demonstrating to the public the workings of the law to which they have given their sanction. If the law is a bad and an unjust law, then the lawyer brings this forcibly to the attention of the public by demanding that the law be enforced. And so the lawyers may stir the people to change bad laws by which the courts are bound. But the changing of laws is the province of the people through their elected representatives. If the courts could change laws at will, then courts would soon become tyrannical and no man would be safe in his person or his property.”
Earlier in the book Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry are discussing the court’s responsibility in regard to law and justice;
TJ: “But the court must uphold the law. That is the function of a court . . .”
PH: “You’re wrong, Tom. The function of a court is to see that justice is done. Courts are courts of justice, and when I get before that jury I’ll argue justice and the devil with the law and all the precedents.”
Do you agree with Jefferson and Wythe that courts must uphold the law and thereby expose those laws that are truly bad in order that the legislature may fix or annul or repeal those bad laws? Or are the courts meant to dispense justice no matter what the letter of the law may say?
It depends on the law. The best law happens where legislatures provide general guidance and let the courts develop applications in the interests of justice. It’s impossible to anticipate every wrinkle of human situation and laws that attempt to be so detailed inevitably get tripped up in their own complexity. Judge-developed law, whether the common law or applications of general statutes, adds the benefit of experience to the limits of foresight.
Generally, though, when there is a specific legislative or higher court ruling that is directly on point but counter to justice, I think it is the court’s duty to point it out but to follow existing law. However, there nearly always is a way to distinguish or otherwise avoid such a situation.
What a great question. Either way, it’s a gray area that comes with its own set of pros and cons. Personally, I would lean toward making sure that justice is done so that individuals do not suffer permanent damage from poorly written legislation, but I can see the other side of the coin almost as easily. i would probably have to make my call on a case-by-case basis.