Yesterday, I had the privilege of engaging in a profoundly enriching discourse with a distinguished legal luminary whose career has spanned over a decade, primarily dedicated to prosecution. As our conversation delved into the intricate ethical considerations guiding the career choices of legal practitioners—whether to champion the cause of prosecution or to tread the path of a criminal defence attorney within the intricate domain of criminal law—we embarked upon a journey through the corridors of jurisprudential philosophy.
Throughout our intellectual odyssey, my erudite interlocutor consistently invoked a venerable maxim: Blackstone's Ratio. This philosophical cornerstone, deeply ensconced in the annals of legal thought, beckoned for an exhaustive exploration, particularly in its parallels within the biblical Genesis maxim and its historical resonance within the ecclesiastical annals of the Christian Church, given its undeniable linkage to the individual who propagated it. Oxford Reference/The Australian Law dictionary cites the maxim as "The ratio of 10:1 expressed in the maxim 'Better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer': William Blackstone, Commentaries 358. The same ratio occurs in Genesis 18:23–32."
Within his magnum opus, "Commentaries on the Laws of England," Sir William Blackstone refrained from offering an exhaustive or systematic treatise on the interplay between biblical doctrine and jurisprudence. Nonetheless, he astutely interwove allusions to biblical precepts and ethical considerations into the tapestry of English common law.
Blackstone, a luminary legal scholar of the 18th century in the British Isles, posited that the bedrock of English common law rested upon the bedrock of natural law and moral rectitude, a foundation he often juxtaposed with the tenets of scriptural teachings. In his erudite discourse, he advocated for aligning legal constructs with these moral principles, contending that the law should serve as a bastion for their preservation and vindication.
"As humankind's dependence is absolute upon the Creator for all that they possess, it becomes imperative that they should harmonise with the divine will of their Maker. This divine will, termed the 'law of nature,' comprises the immutable, eternal dictates of what is virtuous and reprehensible—tenets set forth by the Almighty and to which even the Creator Himself adheres throughout His divine dispensations. These are principles that human reason can apprehend to guide their comportment in the realm of human affairs."
In essence, Blackstone espoused the belief that the scaffolding of natural law, which he perceived to be deeply rooted in the scriptural canon, ought to underpin the edifice of the legal system. Nevertheless, he was not oblivious to the exigency of positive laws promulgated by human authorities in effectuating the regulation of society with efficacy.
It is noteworthy that while Blackstone's oeuvre is frequently associated with a conservative and devout perspective on jurisprudence, it is equally salient to recognise the enduring influence of his juridical ruminations, which continue to engross and stimulate contemporary legal scholars.
With this lady's enumerable enunciations of this doctrine, which carried a profound assertion regarding the impermeability of personal values into the tapestry of legal practice, my curiosity was piqued, prompting me to seek further enlightenment. "May I inquire," I ventured, "as to the nature of this ratio that commands your attention?" To my satisfaction, she bestowed upon me the revelation, "It is Blackstone's Ratio." At this juncture, an irresistible urge to delve deeper seized me, and I inquired, "From whence did Blackstone glean the wisdom embedded in this ratio?" Her visage radiated with sagacity as she imparted the knowledge "From the Bible." To this, I concurred, acknowledging the profound biblical roots that underpin this legal precept.
Such reflections instigated within me a broader contemplation: the contention that legal practitioners, legal scholars, and budding legal minds ought to abstain from infusing their moral compass into the intricate fabric of the law bears scant historical veracity. It diminishes further when considered within the contemporary legal landscape.
The modern legal milieu has metamorphosed, casting off the vestiges of its historical precedents and embracing emergent norms and principles.
Consider, if you will, the advisors on parliamentary policy, particularly within the hallowed halls of academia. It becomes discernibly evident that these luminaries frequently flaunt their philosophical and political ideologies, often aligning under the banner of "rationalism." However, upon closer scrutiny, when these ideologies are juxtaposed with the policies they advocate, a palpable dissonance emerges—one that challenges the very essence of rationality. This disjuncture becomes even more pronounced when such positions contravene the sentiments held dear by a significant portion of the global populace and even more if we consider other monotheistic traditions or paganism.
These positions may be interpreted as thinly veiled expressions of antipathy toward religious beliefs, whether by fervently advocating for secular pluralism at any cost or curtailing religious freedoms under the pretext of restraining an allegedly excessively wielded religious authority that could fall under the guise of general human rights principles, at least under the guise of "freedom of thought" and "freedom of expression" - a sentiment disdained by those that champion rational inquiry. The question beckons: If you are to restrain or diminish the sentiments under the guise of rationalism - do you rationally concede that your ideals may be trumped by those you wish to squander?
In the contemporary legal milieu, specific values are tolerated and actively encouraged to permeate the legal framework. Nevertheless, the discussion did not exclusively revolve around this theme; we had also ventured into therapeutic jurisprudence - another concept easily wielded in favour of specific religious dispositions.
Within the intricate confines of criminal law and its attendant defence strategies, which encompass the nuanced plea of duress and the multifaceted considerations entailed in sentencing, a poignant query emerged: To what extent should an adept criminal defence attorney stretch the boundaries of reason or conceive ingenious rationales to elucidate the actions of their client or an accused individual? I posited a foundational philosophical premise—one that posits an individual facing criminal charges, reared in socioeconomically disadvantaged conditions, may bear a predilection for criminality driven by the allure of tangible rewards. I inquired, does this proposition not endure as a tenable thesis, particularly when viewed through the lens of systemic factors that contribute to criminality? Implicit in my query was a critique of the welfare state's capacity to eradicate criminal behaviour, for human aspirations often transcend mere subsistence, occasionally veering towards emulating Capitalistic idols like Scarface.
Moreover, my esteemed conversational companion exhibited a fervent advocacy for therapeutic jurisprudence—an ethos that, through the discerning lens of my contemplation, resonated profoundly with principles anchored in Christianity.
Both therapeutic jurisprudence and Christianity espouse a profound commitment to the ideals of compassion, empathy, and a deep understanding of those who find themselves entangled in the complexities of legal disputes or ensnared in the consequences of their actions. In the Christian doctrine, the imperative of loving one's neighbour and extending the grace of forgiveness assumes paramount importance, resonating profoundly within legal arenas where individuals need solace and comprehension.
In various passages from the New and Old Testaments of the Bible, the message of loving one's neighbour as oneself is reiterated. In Mark 12:31, it is emphasised that this commandment is second in importance only to loving God. Similarly, in Matthew 22:39, it is stressed that loving one's neighbour is akin to the commandment to love oneself. Leviticus 19:18 implores people not to seek vengeance but to love their neighbours as they love themselves, stating that this is the will of the Lord. In Luke 10:27, it is affirmed that loving one's neighbour is integral to loving God with all one's heart, soul, strength, and mind. Galatians 5:14 teaches that we fulfil the entire law by loving our neighbours as ourselves. Romans 13:9 underscores that all commandments are encapsulated in the command to love one's neighbour, and James 2:8 affirms that adhering to this royal law aligns with righteous living.
Within the realm of restorative justice, we encounter an approach that endeavours to rectify harm and kindle the fires of healing, not only for the victims but also for the offenders and the broader communities affected. This philosophical concept converges harmoniously with the principles of reconciliation and redemption espoused in various, if not all, Christian theologies, offering individuals a path toward atonement and the pursuit of forgiveness. The notion of second chances finds fertile ground in therapeutic jurisprudence, where the belief in affording individuals an opportunity for redemption and rehabilitation occupies a central role. This conviction resonates seamlessly with the core teachings of Christianity, which extol the virtues of transformation and the innate potential of individuals to metamorphose and embrace more virtuous, righteous paths.
2 Corinthians 5:17 declares that those in Christ are made new, leaving behind their old selves. Romans 12:2 encourages believers to avoid conforming to worldly patterns but instead to be renewed through a transformed mind to discern God's perfect will. Ephesians 4:22-24 instructs believers to shed their old ways and adopt a new mindset, reflecting God's righteousness. Colossians 3:9-10 reinforces the idea of discarding old habits and taking on a new self, renewed in knowledge and resembling the image of God. Psalm 51:10 is a plea for a pure heart and a steadfast spirit, while Titus 3:5 underscores salvation through God's mercy, leading to rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. Finally, 1 John 1:9 offers hope in God's forgiveness and purification from sin through confession and faith. These verses underscore the theme of renewal in Christ and the pursuit of righteousness through faith and divine grace.
In the compassionate purview of therapeutic jurisprudence, cognisance is taken of the profound impact that legal processes can wield upon the mental well-being of individuals ensnared within their intricate machinery. This concern dovetails elegantly with the Christian ethos, which places a premium on caring for the vulnerable and alleviating suffering. Particularly salient is the consideration of mental health issues, where therapeutic jurisprudence endeavours to proffer treatment and support rather than resorting to punitive measures, aligning closely with Christian precepts.
These verses from the Old and New Testaments underscore the Christian responsibility to alleviate suffering for others and demonstrate compassion. Proverbs 19:17 teaches that showing kindness to the poor is akin to lending to the Lord, promising a reward for such actions. Matthew 25:35-36 portrays Jesus' message of helping those in need, emphasising acts of charity towards the hungry, thirsty, strangers, and those in distress. The Parable of the Good Samaritan in Luke 10:25-37 illustrates the importance of aiding those suffering. Galatians 6:2 encourages believers to share each other's burdens, fulfilling the law of Christ. James 1:27 defines pure religion as caring for orphans and widows in their distress while maintaining moral integrity. Isaiah 58:10 promises that helping the hungry and oppressed will bring illumination and transformation. Finally, 1 John 3:17-18 emphasises the need for tangible acts of love and compassion rather than mere words, affirming the importance of aiding those in need as a reflection of God's love. These verses emphasise the Christian duty to assist, whether through basic necessities or acts of kindness, to alleviate suffering and manifest God's love in action.
Both therapeutic jurisprudence and Christianity converge upon recognising the pivotal role played by community and support systems in the lives of individuals navigating the corridors of the legal system. In the legal domain, this recognition may include family, religious organisations, or other communal resources to aid individuals in rehabilitation and societal reintegration.
Galatians 6:2 highlights the idea of bearing each other's burdens to fulfil the law of Christ. Acts 2:44-45 and 4:32-35 depict early believers sharing their possessions and resources to aid anyone in need, fostering a sense of unity and eradicating poverty among them. 1 John 3:17 questions the presence of God's love in someone who possesses material goods yet refuses to help a brother or sister in need. Proverbs 19:17 asserts that kindness to the poor is akin to lending to the Lord, promising divine reward. Romans 12:13 encourages sharing with fellow believers in need and practising hospitality. Hebrews 13:16 emphasises the importance of doing good and sharing with others as sacrifices pleasing to God. Lastly, James 2:15-16 underscores the ineffectiveness of mere words without corresponding actions when someone in the community lacks necessities. Collectively, these verses promote the principles of community, compassion, and assistance in reflecting God's love and fulfilling the teachings of Christ.
Within the framework of therapeutic jurisprudence, a salient objective is the attenuation of recidivism by delving into the foundational causes of criminal behaviour. In consonance with this aim, Christianity, too, may advocate for endeavours to forestall individuals from relapsing into injurious actions, exhorting them to chart a course towards virtuous and morally upright lives.
The rich tapestry of Christian ethics provides a moral and ethical compass that can exert a profound influence on the realm of legal decision-making and practices. Legal systems, cognisant of these deeply ingrained Christian ethical principles, may be swayed by considerations of equity, justice, and the paramount interests of the individuals ensnared within their jurisdictional confines.
This resonance attained heightened significance when contrasted with religious doctrines that extol an "eye-for-an-eye" retribution to establish deterrence mechanisms. Christianity, with its profound moral foundations steeped in the virtues of love, compassion, and forgiveness, has exerted a substantial and enduring influence upon the intricate fabric of jurisprudential thought, permeating many legal systems with the essence of empathy. The principles that underpin Christian jurisprudence accentuate the paramount significance of extending benevolence, compassion, and unwavering impartiality, especially within the labyrinthine realm of legal adjudication.
At the epicentre of Christian theology resides the pivotal commandment to "love your neighbour as yourself." This divine injunction exhorts Christians, compelling them to exemplify benevolence and empathy even towards those ensnared in the web of alleged transgressions. Within the sphere of jurisprudence, this celestial mandate manifests in a resolute commitment to fathom the intricate nuances of circumstances and motivations that underlie legal disputes, fostering an environment conducive to comprehension and reconciliation.
The Christian faith espouses a timeless commitment to forgiveness, crystallised in the Lord's Prayer, where adherents are enjoined to extend clemency to those who may transgress against them. Within the domain of jurisprudence, this profound tenet resonates deeply with the ethos of restorative justice—a philosophical framework dedicated to healing wounds inflicted by wrongdoing, catalysing a process of reconciliation and redemption that extends its balm to both victims and offenders.
Imprinted deeply within the annals of Christian theology lies the concept of second chances and redemption, beckoning individuals to embark upon transformative odysseys toward renewal and reformation. This theological doctrine harmonises seamlessly with legal principles that prioritise rehabilitation and provide opportunities for individuals to metamorphose, reintegrate into society, and tread paths of moral rectitude.
Vatican City is the spiritual and administrative centre of the Roman Catholic Church and is considered the holiest city in Christianity. It is the smallest independent state globally and is the headquarters of the Pope.
Italy has a solid historical and cultural connection to Christianity, particularly Roman Catholicism. The country is home to the Vatican City and numerous critical religious sites and artifacts. Greece has a long history of Christian tradition, with the Greek Orthodox Church being a significant religious institution. Many important Christian theological concepts and early Christian communities have their roots in Greece. The Russian Orthodox Church is a dominant religious institution in Russia, and Orthodox Christianity plays a significant role in the country's culture and history. Armenia is one of the world's oldest Christian nations, and the Armenian Apostolic Church is central to Armenian identity and culture. Georgia is another country in the South Caucasus with a strong Christian tradition. The Georgian Orthodox Church is a vital institution in the country. Ireland has a deep Catholic tradition, and the Catholic Church has played a significant role in Irish history and culture. Poland has a strong Roman Catholic heritage, and the Catholic Church has been a powerful institution, especially during political change. Malta is predominantly Roman Catholic, and the Catholic Church plays a prominent role in Maltese society. The Philippines is a predominantly Christian country with a significant Roman Catholic population. Christianity has a substantial influence on Filipino culture and traditions.
Italy does not have the death penalty. It abolished capital punishment in 1948. Greece abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 2004. Russia retains the death penalty, but there has been a moratorium on executions since 1996 as part of Russia's commitment to the Council of Europe. However, the death penalty is not officially abolished. Armenia abolished the death penalty in 2003 as part of its commitment to the Council of Europe. Georgia has not officially abolished the death penalty, but there has been a moratorium on executions since 2007. The country is also a member of the Council of Europe. Ireland abolished the death penalty in 1990. Poland abolished the death penalty in 1997 as part of its path to European Union membership. Malta abolished the death penalty for all crimes in 1971. The Philippines retains the death penalty but reimposed it for certain drug-related offences in 2020. The country has a complex history with the death penalty, including periods of abolition and reinstatement.
As we pivot our gaze towards Sharia law, we encounter a nuanced perspective on retribution encapsulated within the enigmatic concept of "Qisas," often synonymous with "an eye for an eye." However, we must acknowledge that this principle is a subject of interpretation and application within the intricate tapestry of Islamic jurisprudence.
The "Qisas" principle at the heart of Sharia law is intrinsically bound to the foundational concept of retribution, meticulously crafted to ensure that justice maintains an equitable equilibrium. Its core mission revolves around preserving a delicate equilibrium in the meting out of legal penalties, warranting that punitive measures remain proportionate to the harm wrought.
While "Qisas" may be wielded as a vessel for retribution, Islamic jurisprudence seamlessly incorporates provisions for compassion and forgiveness. In numerous instances, the embrace of forgiveness is actively encouraged, offering the victim or their family the prerogative to extend a pardon to the offender. Such acts of mercy can chart divergent courses from the rigidity of a literal "eye for an eye" retribution.
In the realm of contemporary Islamic jurisprudence, the application of "Qisas" engenders robust debate and divergence of perspectives. Numerous nations with Muslim-majority populations have embarked upon comprehensive legal reforms to modernise their legal frameworks. These reforms deftly assimilate contemporary conceptions of justice, incorporating mechanisms such as incarceration and financial restitution, all while upholding the foundational precepts of Sharia law.
Saudi Arabia is home to the two holiest cities in Islam, Mecca and Medina. It follows a strict interpretation of Sunni Islam known as Wahhabism and applies Islamic law (Sharia) in its legal system. Iran is an Islamic Republic where Twelver Ja'fari Shia Islam is the dominant faith. The country has a theocratic system of government with a Supreme Leader and elected officials. Pakistan is an Islamic Republic with a predominantly Sunni Muslim population. It has Islam as the state religion and incorporates Islamic principles into its legal system. Indonesia has the largest Muslim population in the world, primarily following a moderate form of Sunni Islam. While it is a Muslim-majority country, it also has diverse religious and cultural traditions. Egypt has a significant Sunni Muslim majority and has Islamic law as a source of legislation. Al-Azhar University in Cairo is one of the most prestigious Islamic institutions in the world. Turkey is a secular state with a predominantly Sunni Muslim population. While the state is secular, Islam plays a significant cultural and historical role. Bangladesh has a predominantly Sunni Muslim population, and Islam is the state religion. It has a legal system that incorporates Islamic law in family matters. Nigeria has a substantial Muslim population, primarily in the northern regions. Sharia law is applied in some northern states, but the country is religiously diverse. Malaysia has a Muslim-majority population, with Sunni Islam as the dominant faith. Islam plays a significant role in the country's legal and political framework.
Morocco has a Sunni Muslim majority, and Islam is the state religion. The country follows a moderate interpretation of Islam. Jordan has a majority Sunni Muslim population, and Islam is the state religion. The country has a mixed legal system that includes elements of Islamic law. The UAE has a significant Muslim population, primarily Sunni. It follows a blend of civil and Islamic law.
Saudi Arabia applies the death penalty and conducts executions for various offences, including murder, drug trafficking, and apostasy. Iran is known for having one of the highest execution rates in the world. The death penalty applies to various offences, including drug-related crimes, political activism, and murder. Pakistan retains the death penalty and carries out executions, primarily for offences such as murder and terrorism-related crimes. Egypt has the death penalty and applies it for various offences, including murder and terrorism-related crimes. Bangladesh maintains the death penalty for certain crimes, including murder and war crimes. In Nigeria, the death penalty is retained and applied in some northern states where Sharia law is in effect. Malaysia retains the death penalty for offences such as murder and drug trafficking. Jordan has the death penalty, which is applied to crimes like murder. Although the UAE retains the death penalty, it is not frequently applied, and executions are relatively rare.
At its core, therapeutic jurisprudence champions the conviction that every individual merits a second chance, recognising that the circumstances precipitating their initial transgressions may have been moulded by a world, as articulated in Christianity, steeped in brokenness. These circumstances may equally stem from deviations from the ideal societal framework, a departure from the moral precepts espoused by this faith. Indeed, the sagacious Father Bob Maguire encapsulated these sentiments by affirming that "no child is inherently flawed; their conditions may simply mar their wiring."
Reflecting, I deem it unnecessary to embark upon a more exhaustive investigation of Blackstone's Ratio. The Oxford Reference unequivocally establishes its biblical origins. Moreover, the corroboration of this historical fact by a legal luminary whose expertise spans the intricacies of criminal law only bolsters this assertion's veracity.
Nonetheless, a riveting connection emerges when one delves into the Gospel of Luke. This biblical narrative unfolds a poignant exchange between Jesus and a remorseful criminal. As this transgressor implores Jesus to remember him as he journeys toward redemption, the divine response resounds with profound compassion: "Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise."
In summation, endeavours aimed at discrediting the evolutionary trajectory of English law or at diminishing the pivotal role played by Christianity in nurturing an empathetic therapeutic jurisprudence appear to rest on tenuous foundations when subjected to the impartial scales of justice. The evidentiary balance decidedly tips in favour of the enduring influence of these factors upon the intricate tapestry of our legal system, continually shaping our conception of justice in the ever-evolving tapestry of contemporary society. This influence, it appears, remains ineluctable, impervious to attempts to distance oneself from the historical events that engendered their philosophical legacy or to disavow their enduring impact.
Emperor Justinian I, who commissioned the compilation of the "Corpus Juris Civilis," ruled the Roman Empire when it was already a Christian state. Justinian I was the Byzantine Emperor, specifically the Eastern Roman Empire, and his reign began in 527 AD, several decades after the Roman Empire officially converted to Christianity.
In 313 AD, the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great issued the Edict of Milan, which granted religious tolerance to all religions, including Christianity. This marked an important step towards the acceptance of Christianity within the Roman Empire. In 380 AD, Emperor Theodosius I issued the Edict of Thessalonica, also known as the "Cunctos populos" decree, which declared Nicene Christianity the Roman Empire's state religion.
So, by the time of Emperor Justinian I's rule in the 6th century AD, Christianity was the official state religion of the Roman Empire, and the Christian Church played a significant role in the empire's governance and culture. Justinian's efforts to compile and codify Roman law into the "Corpus Juris Civilis" occurred in the context of a Christianized Roman Empire, and Christian principles influenced his legal reforms to some extent.
