Upadhyaya's studies of Kalidasa verses on law and justice tells that king's schooling in the scriptures as well as treatises on polity gave him a thorough knowledge of law with the help of which he was expected to administer justice. The punishment of the criminals in proportion to their crimes (Hindi Raghuvamsa, 1.6) required of the king a sharp grasp of the judicial laws (Hindi. Raghuvamsa. 1.9) which alone could give him an idea of the legal remedies in proportion to crimes. The king was the protector (Gopta} of the people and he applied law to the ends of justice.61
Manu enjoins that the king shall protect the inherited property of a minor until he returned from his teacher's house or until he passed his minority.62 Likewise, he urges the
…show more content…
The king who looks (into causes) according to the sacred law along with the judge, the ministers, The Brahmanas, the family priest and the assessors or jurors (sabhyas) attains heaven.71 Elsewhere, he tells that where the king himself looks into all actions according to the dictates of dharma, there the people behave well and reside in happiness". 71 And he (the king) should discard the teachings of politics and resort to the dictates of dharmashastra (sacred law)': ``This seems to be similar to Yajnavalkya assertion, where the latter says describing the rules of judicial procedure, that "the rule is that the science of law is stronger than the science of politics".'Dharma hence, was of primal importance over the realm of …show more content…
Manusmrti says — But if the king does not personally investigate the suits then let him appoint a learned Brahamana to try them.83This learned Brahmana along with three other Brahmanas versed in Vedas formed what Manu calls the 'court of (four faced) Brahman. Further, he says that even a despicable Brahman who subsists merely by the name of race could interpret the law for king. Except the shudras, the other two castes in the ladder along with Brahmins could play a role likewise.84
The Arthashastra prescribed that there shall be established a bench of three judges who shall hold court a frontier posts, sub district headquarters and provincial headquarters (samgrahanas, dronamukhas and sthaniyas).85 Their text which suggests that impersonation might have been prevalent. In verse 3.20.17, the text says — "No one shall pretend to be a magistrate and examine a suspect under oath". Further, there is a verse what exhorts the judge to take an initiative in certain types of lawsuits. It says — "The judges themselves shall take charge of the affairs of Gods, Brahmins, ascetics, women, minors, old people, the sick and those that are helpless (e.g. orphans) (even) when they do not approach the court'’. How and if at all this could have been practiced seems difficult to visualize. The idea innate implies that judges ought to take care of those revered
But if any one transgresses, and does violence to the laws, or thinks to dictate to his rulers, such an one can win no praise from me. No, whomsoever the city may appoint, that man must be obeyed, in little things and great, in just things and unjust; and I should feel sure that one who thus obeys would be a good ruler no less than a good subject, and in the storm of spears would stand his ground where he was set, loyal and dauntless at his comrade's sid...
Overall, King sympathizes with the exception of the white people and the Negroes who agree to disobey the unjust laws. “One who breaks an unjust law must do so openly, lovingly, and with a willingness to accept the penalty. I submit that an individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience
This is not even the tip of the iceberg of what King would have to deal with after his arrival. He has noted that there is injustice everywhere in the community. To get the people to believe him on this stance, he has referred to many events that have taken place in the not too distant past during the time of the letter’s origination. The many things that he cites in his letter included the unfair treatment in court
King urged people to obey laws, but the exception is unjust laws. "...there are two types of laws: just and unjust...One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws," (King). He quotes St. Augustine in saying "an unjust law is no law at all." He goes on to describe a just law as a law that follows moral law and the law of God. He describes an unjust law as out of harmony with moral law, and a human law not rooted in eternal and natural
Justice is perhaps the most formidable instrument that could be used in the pursuit of peace. It allows for people to rise above the state of mere nature and war with one another. However the fool believes that justice is a mere tool to be used to acquire power and rule at his own discretion. Can it be possible for anyone to be that virtuous? Or does power acquired in that manner actually come from somewhere else? Through justice it’s possible to produce a sovereign that is in harmony with the very people that constitute its power. The argument against the fool and for justice will proceed from this foundation.
Justice is a very important ruling power for both gods and mortals. For instance, in Sophocles' tragedy, Antigone, justice prevails over king Creon's actions. He sentences his own niece to death for giving her deceased brother, a pronounced enemy of Thebes, a proper burial. In return for his rigid ruling he loses his wife and son to tragic deaths. Creon puts his own city?s justice before the determined justice of the gods, and pays dearly for it. Antigone also receives justice for her actions even though she dies. She did go against the law of her mortal king, but did obey the law of the gods, and therefore died a hero and martyr. The laws of the gods gives dishonor to those who do not properly respect their family members. In order to keep her honor and self-respect, Antigone had to break her city?s law, even if it meant death.
...rinciples of law that were founded outside of his or her own opinion. They are not the source of what is just or unjust, but rather they merely apply the rules already established from years of social progression and political influence. Thus, when Divine Command theorists argue that they have successfully conquered the Euthyphro Argument, they must be reminded that the opposite is true, and the age-old dilemma has actually reduced their deities to magistrates of morality.
The belief of the divine right of kings is that the king and the universe are connected. If the King performs bad acti...
them the power to construct the law in a way that sustains their elite position. For Darrow, as a
...s are a paradigm case of those in control. The essence of ruling is, therefore, to be unjust and that is why a tyrant is a perfect ruler. He always knows what is to his advantage and how to acquire it. Thrasymachus’ view of justice is appealing but therein lies a moral danger and this is refuted by Socrates.
Compassion, like generosity is also admired. But a ruler must be careful that he does not show compassion unwisely. A new ruler has to be cruel initially, because being a new ruler is full of d...
King uses a question and solution expository mode to effectively set up claims about justice and differentiate between two ideas. He asks, “How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law” (16). He starts out with a question, which relates his purpose of exploring what makes a law just (and therefore obediently followed). This questioning shows that he has thought a lot about justice. His actions are well thought out, which tells the clergymen and other white readers that he is sincere and respectful. The solutions he presents are also well thought out, and his explanations seem fathomable. His claim that a law that is in line with moral or natural laws is just seems a given because of the way he set this up.
In The Laws of Manu the caste system is described in great detail. It explains everything one must do to be a part of their caste. In Hinduism each social class (varna) has its own dharma, or social law. The concept of dharma regulates all parts of life for Hindu’s and outlines their duties. However, there are different levels of dharma for people in the twice-born varnas, which includes the Brahmin, Ksatriya, and Vaisya. The different levels of dharma are based on the stage of life that an individual is at. The four stages an individual can be at are a student, a householder, a forest-dweller, or a sannyasin. A sannyasin is the lowest stage one can be in and one reaches that stage when they have cut all of their ties to society. In the text from The Laws of Manu it is stated that a householder may “never, for the sake of subsistence, follow the ways of the world: let him live the pure straightforward, honest life of a Brahmin” (Smart & Hecht 214). The Hindus believed in living a very simple life and being very honorable. The Laws of Manu states that no Brahmin should “attach himself to any sensual pleasures” (214) and also to “avoid all (means of acquiring) wealth which impede the study of the Veda” (214). In The Laws of Manu the idea of final liberation is brought up very frequently. Final liberation is the goal of all Brahmins. A Brahmin lives his whole life striving to reach final liberation and he does so by following dharma. He does not challenge dharma at all and believes that if he follows it, he will reach final liberation.
According to Aristotle, "The rule of law is better than that of any individual”, suggesting every member of society, even a ruler, must abide by and follow the law. The rule of law is linked to the principle of justice, meaning that everyone within a society (including both private citizens and government officials) are subject to the law, and that those laws are administered fairly and justly. The intention of the rule of law is to protect against arbitrary governance. It is the basic underpinning of a free society.
Contrary to the Chinese customary law, the Hindu customary law did not impose upon the courts in the Strait Settlements and Malay States, the problem of ascertaining its substantive principles. In ascertaining the principle of Hindu customary law, the court could rely on the evidence of experts on the local customs of the Hindu community and the authoritative texts of the 19th century.