United States Vs. Morris

United States Vs. Morris

Introduction

United States vs. Morris is one of the famous cases that led to nullification of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1864. A man known as Shadrach escaped from slavery in 1850 in Norfolk, Virginia and made his way to Boston. He worked as a waiter in a restaurant until an agent of his former master discovered where he was in 1851 (Abramson, 81). The agent began summary proceedings before a magistrate court to take Shadrach back to the master, in accordance with the Fugitive Slave Law. During the proceedings, a large crowd burst into the court room and invited Shadrach to accompany them out. Eventually, Shadrach managed to escape to Canada. However, eight of his alleged rescuers, four whites and four blacks, were arrested and were charged with the violation of the Fugitive Slave Law by aiding the escape of the slave. Despite taking oath and promising to abide by the law, the jurors handling this case acquitted the defendants and declared the Fugitive Slave Law null and void. This essay examines this issue in light of the perspectives of earlier theories of law (the natural law, positivism and realism) and the perspectives of more recent theorists (Dworkin, critical legal theorists and Feinberg). Though they hold differing perspectives, the different theorists, in various ways, support the fact that the critical jurors did the right thing by acquitting the defendants on the base that they were not guilty.

Discussion

Natural law theorists argue that laws are derived directly from moral standards upheld in a society. One of the natural law theorists, Blackstone, believed that natural law is build up from moral principles which originated from and are dictated by God himself (George, 175). As such, it is superior to all other laws and it is binding over all societies globally, at all times. According to him, any human laws that contradict moral standards are of no validity. From this perspective, all human laws derive their force and authority from moral standards. Aquinas, another natural law theorist, supported this view, arguing that all human laws must reflect morality since morality is inherently right, given that it stems from the divine.

According to Aquinas, human beings are rational creatures with conscience that has an imprint from divine and enables them to determine what is right or wrong (George, 176). Thus, human laws should be developed naturally from conscience and morality. From the view of the natural theorists, laws that are meant to discriminate a section or sections of people, on the basis of color, gender or race are not laws, but mere violence. Such a law is inconsistent with the divine law or the natural law and there are neither moral nor legal obligations to obey it. The Fugitive Slave Law discriminated against black people by treating them as properties of their owners, which is morally wrong. Therefore, the natural law theorists’ perspective supports the act of the jurors of following morality in this case.

The legal positivism perspective avoids the view held by natural law theorists regarding the connection that exists between law and morality. Hart, one of the major proponents of this perspective holds that there is no necessary connection between law and morality or ethics. In Hart’s view, a rule becomes a law when it is established by the society and is recognized in an official, legal manner by the state. As such, the validity of a law is dependent on specific social facts that act as its pillars and not moral standards. This marks the distinction from the natural law theory which states that law stems from divine source or morality.

However, the positivists suggest that judges are not bound to rely primarily on the established rules; they should apply them only where relevant. They should always take into account the underlying principles but may not apply them case-by-case. This implies that judges may reject a rule if they find it unfit in the determination of a case. The aim of this, as Hart explains, is to come up with the most justifiable outcome. In the United States vs. Morris case, the jurors found slave labor to be unjustifiable and thus, did the right thing in the perspective of positivist theorists by acquitting the defendants. Additionally, legal positivism theorists suggest that when judges are faced with cases to which no established rules or clear rules that apply to them, they should exercise discretion through creation of new rules. Although this notion may not fully apply to this case given that there was an established law, the aim of discretion can be used to support the act of the judges of acquitting the defendants. Generally, the positivism theory supports the acts of the jurors in rejecting the Fugitive Slave Law and giving their own discretion.

Legal realism theory also supports the move taken by the judges in the United States vs. Morris case. As Green (1916) explains, this perspective arose in response to a model called ‘legal formalism’ which stipulates that a legal outcome should be based on a legal rule supported by a statement of relevant facts. Realists such as Karl Llewellyn, Felix Cohen and Jerome Frank believe that formalism understates the abilities of judicial in lawmaking as it represents legal outcomes to be simply based on the applicable legal rules and material facts. As such, judges are bound by formal rules and they lack authority to come up with different outcomes. The Legal realists argue that the available legal materials are insufficient to assist jurors in reaching unique outcomes in unique cases that are worth litigating in appellate courts. In such cases, judges should be given discretion to determine and come up with the most suitable outcome through making of new laws (Green, 1917).

Remarkably, the realists’ conception is universally binding and experimental. Currently, judges do make new and enact the existing laws in order to come up with the most suitable outcomes for cases. The realists argue that evaluation by a judge or judges should stick to the details of the case at hand (Green, 1917). They should adapt an inductive, stimulus-based approach in deciding the outcome of a case, rather than the deductive approach suggested by formalists. This implies that judges are free to make new laws in cases that they believe that the existing legal framework does not lead to suitable outcomes that represent good will towards members of a society or community. As Green explains, judicial outcomes in such cases are influenced by a judge’s moral and political convictions and not by legal considerations (1925). Therefore, morality is one of the factors that judges can base their decisions in hard cases or in cases with conflicting outcomes. This clearly shows that realists’ view supports the actions of the judges in the United States vs. Morris case.

One of the recent theorists, Ronald Dworkin, focuses on the power of principles in determining the outcomes of cases. He disagrees with the views of Hart on judges’ discretion. According to Dworkin, the fact that judges sometimes rely on non-legal sources to arrive at outcomes does not mean that they use discretion (37). He argues that apart from legal rules, judges rely on other principles that turn the function of the rules on or off. Thus, he argues that these principles should always be considered part of specific cases. Dworkin also disagrees with the positivists’ view that laws originate only from social facts, arguing that there are some legal standards that derive their authorities from other sources other than from social forces. For instance, judges often invoke moral standards in deciding hard cases. Since they are bound to consider such standards when relevant, there is no good reason why they should not be characterized as law (Dworkin, 38).

Dworkin further argues that in deciding the outcomes for hard cases, judges should find the best justifications by thoroughly consulting the standards of political morality. According to him, “the correct legal principle is the one that makes the law moral the best it can be” (Dworkin, 1101). As such, Dworkin supports the view held by natural law theorists. He believes that the constitution of United States protects the moral rights of all citizens as it restricts discrimination or violation of inherent rights of individuals by the democratic majority (Dworkin, 1105). This indicates that Dworkin’s view supports the acts of the judges in the mentioned case, since treating a human being as a property is violation of his or her moral rights. The judges also based their decision on deep moral justification and this further explains the reason why they were right in Dworkin’s eyes.

Critical legal theorists, on the other hand seek to challenge and to overturn standards and norms in the legal practice and theory (Abramson, 85). They believe that the logic and structure of law is designed by the dominant and powerful social classes in the society to protect their interests. Law comprises of prejudices and beliefs that legitimize the injustices carried out by the social group that form it. The powerful groups use it as an instrument for oppression of the less powerful and the minorities in order to maintain their positions in the hierarchy. Thus, critical legal theorists argue that law is part of politics and is not neutral in its effects (Abramson, 86).

Like positivists, critical legal theorists do not tend to give consideration to morality. Rather, they come up with statistics to justify their claims. Butler, a critical race theorist, argues that the constitution of the United States cultivates and supports a white supremacist society (23). He argues that race-based discrimination is evil and that every life matters, including that of an African American. He suggests that race-based discrimination should be ended in the United States through the available, easiest means. Like other critical theorists, he argues that law can be used for positive change. The works of critical theorists contributed to the creation of law tools such as jury nullification and affirmative action which are aimed at spreading opportunities and minimizing inequality (Butler, 25). In general, the nature of the critical legal theory clearly indicates that this perspective is against discrimination of blacks that was protected by the Fugitive Slave Law. Thus, this perspective supports the outcome of the case being discussed in this essay.

Finally, the perspective of another law theorist, Feinberg, tends to uphold the supremacy of moral obligations over legal duties. In an article called “The Dilemmas of Judges Who Must Interpret ‘Immoral Laws,” Feinberg argues that the practical difference between legal positivism and natural law is minimal as applied in law (3). He argues that when judges encounter a conflict between legal duty and a overriding moral obligation, the outcome should be determined in two ways: “The he law, though valid, is outweighed by moral considerations” (Legal positivism) or “The enactment is immoral and is therefore not a valid law,” (natural law) (Feinberg, 5). Thus, in both perspectives, a judge is morally justified to violate a law that is against morality.

However, Feinberg argues that a legal positivism judge has to admit that he has based his decision on sources that are outside the law and invite other judges and the public to censure him for overriding the limits of his office. For a natural law judge, he may argue that the moral principles relied upon are part of the internal law and seek to prove this point. Either way, Feinberg asserts that judges should always uphold morality and should always find justifications in moral principles to assist in arriving at the best outcome that reflect good will towards the society (Feinberg, 7). Clearly, the judges in the case under discussion based their decision on moral principles overriding the Fugitive Slave Law. This clearly shows that the perspective Feinberg’s view supports the outcome of the case.

Conclusion

In conclusion, it is clear that the views of all the different types of theorists examined in the paper (Natural law theorists, Positivists, Realists, Dworkin, Critical legal theorists and Feinberg) are supportive to the decision of the jurors in the United States vs. Morris case, some for moral reasons and others for practical reasons. Natural law theorists, Feinberg and Dworkin believe that moral obligations override legal duties and jurors should always consult moral principles to come up with the most justifiable outcomes. On the other hand, realists and positivists advocate for a right of the judges to accept, reject or come up with new rules in order to arrive at the best outcomes. Critical legal theorists’ also supports the decisions of the judges since they are against any forms of discrimination that are based on race.

Works Cited

Abramson, Jeffrey B., We, the Jury: The Jury System and the Ideal of Democracy : With a New

Preface, Harvard University Press, 1994

Butler, Paul, “By Any Means Necessary: Using Violence and Subversion to Change Unjust

Law” UCLA Law Review, 50 UCLA L. Rev. 721 (2003)

Dworkin, Ronald M., “The Model of Rules” Faculty Scholarship Series. Paper 3609 (1967)

Dworkin Ronald, “Hard Cases,” Harvard Law Review, 88.6 (1975): 1057 – 1109

Feinberg, Joel., Problems at the Roots of Law : Essays in Legal and Political Theory: Essays in

Legal and Political Theory, Oxford University Press, 2002

George, Robert P. “Natural Law,” Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy, 31.1 (2005): 171-

196

Green, Michael Stephen, “Legal Realism as Theory of Law,” William and Mary Law Review,

46.6 (2005): 1915 – 2000

Moore, Michael, S., “Four Reflections on Law and Morality,” William and Mary Law Review,

48.5 (2007): 1523 – 1569