Introduction
This essay explores the notion that justice, despite being grounded in evidence and criminal procedure, remains subjective and shaped by individual perspectives. In the field of law, justice is often presented as an objective ideal, achieved through rigorous evidential standards and procedural fairness. However, the interpretation of evidence and the application of legal processes can vary significantly, influenced by biases, cultural contexts, and systemic factors. This discussion will examine the inherent subjectivity in justice by considering the role of evidence interpretation, the impact of judicial discretion, and the influence of societal values. By critically engaging with these aspects, the essay argues that justice is not a universal constant but a concept often perceived through the lens of personal and collective beholders.
The Subjectivity of Evidence Interpretation
At the heart of the criminal justice system lies the use of evidence to determine guilt or innocence. Yet, the interpretation of evidence is far from straightforward. As Garland (2012) notes, evidence is often contested, with different parties—prosecution, defence, and even jurors—drawing divergent conclusions from the same set of facts. For instance, forensic evidence, such as DNA or fingerprints, is typically viewed as reliable; however, its presentation and contextualisation can skew perceptions. A juror’s prior experiences or implicit biases may lead them to over- or undervalue such evidence, undermining the supposed objectivity of the process. Furthermore, the adversarial nature of the UK legal system often means that evidence is framed to persuade rather than to purely inform, highlighting how justice can be shaped by subjective storytelling rather than unassailable truth (Roberts and Zuckerman, 2010). This suggests that even robust evidential foundations are filtered through human interpretation, making justice a relative concept.
Judicial Discretion and Personal Perspectives
Judicial discretion introduces another layer of subjectivity into the pursuit of justice. Judges, while bound by legal precedent and procedural rules, often exercise significant autonomy in sentencing and case management. According to Ashworth (2015), this discretion allows for flexibility to account for individual circumstances, but it also risks inconsistency across similar cases. For example, two defendants convicted of identical offences might receive markedly different sentences based on a judge’s personal views on rehabilitation versus punishment. While guidelines aim to standardise outcomes, the human element of judicial decision-making cannot be fully eradicated. This raises the question of whether justice is truly served when it hinges on the unique perspective of the adjudicator, even within a structured legal framework.
Societal Values and Cultural Influences
Beyond individual actors, societal values and cultural norms play a critical role in shaping perceptions of justice. What is deemed just in one context may be considered unjust in another, even when evidence and procedure are consistent. For instance, public opinion often influences legal outcomes indirectly through jury decisions or policy reforms, as seen in debates over sentencing for certain offences like drug possession (Hough and Roberts, 2004). Additionally, systemic biases—such as those related to race or socioeconomic status—can distort the application of criminal procedure, perpetuating inequalities under the guise of fairness. Indeed, justice premised on evidence and procedure may still reflect the dominant cultural lens, underscoring its subjective nature.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this essay has argued that justice remains in the eye of the beholder, even when underpinned by evidence and criminal procedure. The subjectivity inherent in evidence interpretation, judicial discretion, and societal influences demonstrates that justice is not a fixed or universal ideal but a construct shaped by personal and collective perspectives. These elements highlight the limitations of achieving true objectivity within the legal system, suggesting that while evidence and procedure provide a framework for fairness, they cannot fully eliminate bias or differing viewpoints. The implication for legal practice is a need for greater awareness of these subjective influences, alongside ongoing efforts to mitigate disparities and enhance consistency. Ultimately, recognising the relativistic nature of justice is essential for a more reflective and equitable criminal justice system.
References
- Ashworth, A. (2015) Sentencing and Criminal Justice. 6th ed. Cambridge University Press.
- Garland, D. (2012) The Culture of Control: Crime and Social Order in Contemporary Society. Oxford University Press.
- Hough, M. and Roberts, J.V. (2004) Youth Crime and Youth Justice: Public Opinion in England and Wales. Policy Press.
- Roberts, P. and Zuckerman, A. (2010) Criminal Evidence. 2nd ed. Oxford University Press.
