Introduction
The question that this paper seeks to answer is whether the law is dead. This very question was raised in 1970 by the Bar Association in New York, which proposed to hold a conference for the purpose. This question has been asked time and again by various philosophers, politicians, and citizens alike throughout history. The question has been raised directly at times and in a more subtle fashion at others.
To answer this question, this paper will consider the work of Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle. These thinkers have shaped the way we look at various elements of law and order apart from the complementary concepts like democracy and constitutions.
Main body
In order to find out if the law is alive, one has to examine a variety of questions. These pertain to the attitude of citizens towards law and the degree of law-abiding people from within them. The reason that the ordinary citizen’s attitude comes into play is that without the will of the citizen nothing can be imposed. The first characteristic that one must seek out is gratefulness. According to Aristotle, this is a virtue that defines the acceptance rate of law in a certain region. Are people grateful for the way they are being governed? In this case, one may find that if the people are more or less grateful then the law is very much alive. But if people are simply following the law with various notions about how it should actually be, the law is most definitely dead (Aristotle, 2004).
As an example, we will find in Plato’s Crito that Socrates was portrayed as a man with elevated sensibilities. When he was given a death sentence, his friend Crito left no stone unturned to make sure that the unjust sentence is called off. This included bribing the guards in order to help Socrates escape. While this escape did not take place for a variety of reasons, the story shows how Socrates believed that even after consuming the poison to end his life in the death sentence, his soul would continue to live through his work and body of knowledge. The trial of Socrates reveals that law in fact has catered very little for coincidences and lack of proof (Plato, 2005).
This story shows that the principal characters Socrates and Crito were unhappy with the law as it had pronounced an unjust statement by which Socrates was to die. This shows that without consent, the law will merely exist without any real takers. So the real question is whether or not the law grants its citizens enough rights by which they may use the law to live respectful lives? This is a question of a mutually complementary relationship between the law and the citizens where it prevails. If this relationship is positive then the law is not dead. In this case, the republic comes into play with its basic premises for reforms and other such instruments within which the relationship can be continually expanded and improved (Plato et al, 2003).
Conclusion
In today’s world, the law has degenerated to a pawn in the face of war and dim hope for peace in various parts of the world. In lieu of such situations, there is no relationship whatsoever between the law and its citizens – merely a dominating factor and the dominated. In such regions, it would be safe to say that the law is indeed dead. Yet, in the wake of new hope born out of emerging fields like human rights, it would be right to say that all is not lost as the law is being reborn in a better form to serve people in an essential and everyday way.
References
- Plato. The Crito. Kessinger Publishing, LLC ( 2005)
- Plato; Lee, D. The Republic. Penguin Classics; 2nd edition ( 2003)
- Aristotle. Politics. NuVision Publications (2004)