The Vague Discrepancies between Law and Opinion - Essay Example

Law v.s. Opinion Can a man be above the law, if he just interprets the law a certain way It becomes a matter of opinion. The thin line between lawand opinion is the defining element of justice in American society. Admitted rapists and murderers have had court cases overturned, simply on the grounds that their constitutional rights were violated. At the same time, many innocent people have been convicted for crimes they didn't commit, simply because they were unable to afford reasonable representation. This essay attempts to clarify the vague discrepancies between law and opinion. Pierre Bourdieu is a highly acclaimed French sociologist. Born on August 1, of 1930, he recently passed away on January 23, 2002. His views embody the disciplines of many tenets including: philosophy, literary theory, sociology, and anthropology. He is the protagonist of the world of sociological studies, and he opposed and debunked some of the most prevalent antagonisms in the genre. His most popular work is Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgment of Taste. In the 1967 study, he interprets how members of the upper class define taste as an aesthetic. He finds that the public has no genuine representation in democratic societies. Pierre Bourdieu asserts that public opinion does not exist. This poses the question, how should we conceive public opinion If it is true that the public does not exist, than the real question is, whose opinion is public opinion Rational Choice Theory poses that idea that human beings form their opinions and decisions based on collective observations and calculations. It also assumes all individuals are well informed of all of their options and that it is an inherent human tendency to think everyone makes decisions this way. If this is true, it would explain the blind faith people have in public opinion. It is a faith so devout, it often sways and molds popular culture ideals. Pierre Bourdieu strongly negates this view. According to his perspective, if there is no public opinion then, the courts judge based entirely according to the law, and their own personal judgment, which we perceive in compliance with an imaginary public. The constitution ends up having a very significant say in the lives of the people. This forces us to look at its core creation by the Federalists and the government that has grown to live by it. The government we have today has come a long way since it's creation by the Founding Fathers. With the new disappointments arising towards the current administration, many have begun to question and asses the purpose of the constitution structured by the Founding Fathers and how it still applies to us today. Some go so far as to suggest that the federalists who framed the constitution insisted on limited federal involvement, but the history of America shows this is not the case. The Federalists protested limited government, while secretly creating a constitution that might one day form into an all powerful force. In fact, history shows that every official in any given office usually tends to take actions to increase the power of the government, whether state or federal, regardless of party classification. This is a formula specifically structured to maintain a minority class of wealthy elite to rule over the majority. The only difference between then and now is technological advancement and experience in the elitist control of the masses. If it were not for the presence of these traits in American society, there would be no real physical change to analyze. In a sense, nothing has really changed; money is still as much the emperor of our nation now, as it was then. Until the twentieth century both scholars and the public revered the Framers as demigods and canonized the Constitution as the crowning symbol of a democratic revolution against tyranny. However, the many publicized political and corporate scandals of the Progressive Era in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries influenced historians to begin viewing the Constitutional Convention with a more jaundiced eye. (Krawczynksi, 2003) In his essay, The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, Keith Krawczynksi, convinced that men were motivated primarily by economic self-interest and that class conflict pervaded human events, argues that the Founding Fathers carried out a counterrevolution by creating a reactionary document to protect their interests against popularly controlled state governments that passed cheap paper money legislation, debtor laws, and other measures that favored small farmers and artisans at the expense of wealthy creditors (2003). To prove their case they pointed to the many provisions in the Constitution that checked popular sovereignty: the difficult procedure for adopting amendments, the judicial veto, the election of senators by state legislators, the election of the president by an electoral college, the appointment of Supreme Court justices by the president, and the awesome power conferred to the central government to suppress popular dissent. Thus, the Constitution was equipped with a system of minority checks and vetoes designed to prevent majority rule (Krawczynksi, 2003). There are many myths applied to American history. One of these myths in particular is that the founding fathers were all selfless and priceless politicians who were able to rise above the tyranny of their day to advance the workings of Democratic government. American reverence for the framers and the undisputed worship of the constitution are virtues instilled in all citizens born within this society. The majority of the Founding Fathers were wealthy conservatives who were actually opposed to democracy. Krawczynksi notes that they often referred to it as a mobocracy. This perception resulted in this elitist class constructing laws that would better maintain the control of government in the hands of the wealthy, and prevent the majority from realizing their strength. The fight to maintain the balance between the power of the government and the power of the people often occurs in legal decisions, which either confirm or redefine the popular interpretation of the U.S. Bill of Rights. The amendments expressed in The Bill of Rights, have often been deemed as the only defense the people have from the government, as well as the only part of the constitution that acknowledges the needs of the common citizen. Interpreting the given scenario above largely depends on one's understanding of due process. Due process was adopted by the Constitution from English Law, specifically the Magna Carta, which was established in 1215 to create grounds for trust between the French and the British. In the constitution, the Fifth Amendment guarantees due process as far as the federal government is concerned, and the Fourth Amendment contains it pertaining to the state government. The Fifth Amendment and due process, as is shown below applies to all citizens of the United States, V: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. (Wikipedia, 2007) Here one can see the way the letter of the law can be interpreted in many different ways. This constitutional amendment has been the tool used to judge many citizens for crimes. It is also can be misinterpreted for or in one's favor. I there is any court case that exemplifies an substantial use of both law and opinion, it would have to be the O.J. Simpson case. The O.J. Simpson trial has become one of the key events of American history. It embodies all of the socioeconomic and legal politics of our country's structure. A modern day tragedy, Simpson's rise and fall, in America, struggles to escape an immediate comparison to the plot of Shakespeare's Othello. It is a true life classic tale encompassing themes like: the black man's burden, immoral aristocracy, and the contradictions between social justice/injustice. On top of that, his life story has become a pop-culture phenomenon, due to its themes of love, sex, betrayal and murder. His story also sheds light on the fact that the racial ideology of our past has a heavy lingering influence on the way our society still functions. He is the best running back of his era in a country that worships football players. The Super Bowl gets higher ratings than the Presidential Address and there is more prestige earned in winning the Hiesman than being awarded a Purple Heart, or a P.H.D. Ironically Simpson did receive the Hiesman trophy, in 1968, and he was dubbed with the unparalleled title of All American. This is ironic for two reasons. One, it signifies the moment when he becomes a member of the upper echelon of American society (it should be noted the title he receives is that of All American not All African American); from this point on, until the controversy with his trial, he is no longer treated like, or commonly viewed as a black American. Granted, there are still prejudice onlookers like Officer Mark Firman, and others just waiting for him to screw up; but until he does, he is untouchable and free of the burdens common to most blacks, even the wealthy ones. When recognizing these facts, it's hard not to acknowledge they may have had some effect on the jury's decision not to convict Simpson. In effect, this is an example of our societies bias creating a mostly opinion based court decision. In sum, the line between opinion and law is one that is tread everyday. It is a tradition that was first established by the framers of our constitution, and now has become inherent in everyday American life. If Pierre Bourdieu is correct, and there is no such thing as public opinion, than we as citizens are forced to face the fact that all of the legal mandates handed down are not the product of public census, but a balance between the constitution the Framers left behind and the personal opinions of hour public officials. It all becomes a matter of bias; enabling one to say, no man is above the law, accept for he who interprets himself to be so. Work Cited Bourdieu, Pierre. (1984) Distinction, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Due process. (2007, February 16). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 12:40, February 20, 2007, from Krawczynksi, Keith "The U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence." History in Dispute, Vol. 12: The American Revolution, 1763-1789., ed. St. James Press, 2003. Reproduced in History Resource Center. Farmington Hills, MI: Gale Read More