Complete Nature of Law
OCR A-Level
Contents:
- Law and Morality (2)
- Law and Justice (4)
- Law and Society (6)
- Rule of Law (8)
Page 1 of 9
, Law and Morality
Intro:
Law —> set of principles and codes of conduct enforced by the state which includes
sanctions
- E.g. Assault occasioning ABH under s47 OAPA 1861
Morals —> a system of values which are individual and stem from places such as peers,
parents and religion
Morality is NOT always reflected in the law e.g. Adultery is not a crime but is considered
immoral. But morals often have nothing to do with the law e.g. Road Traffic Act
1. Morals from religion are in the Law
- 10 commandments ‘thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal’ and these are crimes
now
- Judges subconsciously implement morality from religion into society e.g. Lord
Denning in Donoghue v Stevenson and the ‘neighbour principle’ from ‘love thy
neighbour’
- Aquinas and NL would agree that morals from religion should be implemented in
society
- BUT judges should not allow religious morals to interfere with their judgement as
this would be unjust
2. Laws reflect changing morals
- Law changes as morals change e.g. Abortion Act 1967 and Gay Marriage act
2013 —> but the law must take a stance because there is no consensus
- HOWEVER, often the law is late to adapting to moral norms e.g. R v R and inter-
martial rape, despite being considered immoral for a long time
- BUT law often speeds up morality e.g. Smoking Ban 2007 encouraging social
norms to develop to disagree with smoking
3. Autonomy or Intervention (Hart v Devlin)
- In Brown gay sadomasochism was not allowed to be consented to due to public
policy reasons
- Hart —> this is unfair as it interferes with personal and private lives; instead they
should just protect the public and stop exploitation
- JS Mill agree with the ‘Harm Principle’ ‘people should have autonomy to do what
they want so long as others are not harmed’
- Wolfenden committee report 1957 —> the law should not intervene in the
actions of private citizens
- BUT Devlin —> doing such actions, even in private can weaken the fabric of
society as there is no widely shared view of morality, only the law
- Also prevents pressure on healthcare
Page 2 of 9
, 4. Necessity
- ReA acceptable for one conjoined twin to die to save the other (Bentham/ Util
approach because allows for pleasure of the majority
- Dudley v Stevens men were convicted of murder BUT Bentham would disagree
with this outcome because the men on the boat took a utilitarian approach
- So law does not always agree with morality
5. Euthanasia
- Split moral consensus in society (pro Devlin)
- Pretty v DPP (not allowed), Tony Bland (yes euthanasia allowed via starving)
showing how the law struggles to find a position where to stand
- Judges say that euthanasia must be considered by Parliament
- Euthanasia has worked well in places like Switzerland BUT slippery slope
- New Euthanasia Bill —> law is following new moral consensus and accepting
euthanasia
Conclusion:
- Law works well to reflect morals of society
- Should continue to prevail to allow for consistency and good influence of morals
Page 3 of 9
, Law and Justice
Intro:
- Need for justice within the legal system
- Law—> set of principles and codes of conduct enforced by the state which
includes sanctions
- Justice —> describes as ‘Achieving a fair and proper outcome according to the
rules of the system’
A) Procedural justice through the judicial process e.g. equality from both sides
(Audi alterum partum)
B) Substantive justice which regards rules and outcomes in the law to be fair and
clear
C) Distributive justice which suggests that resources need to be distributed fairly
e.g. LASPO
1. Different theories of justice and disagreements (AO1)
- Aquinas —> natural Law system that services the common good
- Utilitarians —> justice is what achieves the most happiness for the most people
- Rawls —> justice is law creates under a ‘veil of ignorance’ to avoid inequalities
- Nozick —> justice is what allows people to keep what they earn (disagreeing with
current progressive tax laws)
- Marx —> justice is what allows for everything to be shared equally (agreeing with
progressive tax laws)
- Differing opinions e.g. Marx vs Nozick shows how there is no clear view of justice
2. Procedural justice/ juries
- Justice is within the law through procedures e.g. equality for both sides ‘Audi
alterum partem’ BUT both sides don’t always get justice bc cheaper lawyers are
less qualified
- ‘Equality of arms’ LASPO 2012 BUT means tested and harsh
- Juries are selected randomly (Rawls would agree as this is under a ‘veil of
ignorance’) showing justice BUT perhaps unjust that juries have jury equity and
can make perverse decisions e.g. Owen (ran over sons murder), is this just?
3. Vicarious Liability
- Could be argued as unjust on employers to suffer the consequences of
employee's actions despite explaining to employees what not to do (Rose v
Plenty)
- BUT this is in place to protect claimants e.g. creation of ‘akin to employment’,
could argue this is fair for them
4. Strict Liability for public policy reasons
Page 4 of 9
OCR A-Level
Contents:
- Law and Morality (2)
- Law and Justice (4)
- Law and Society (6)
- Rule of Law (8)
Page 1 of 9
, Law and Morality
Intro:
Law —> set of principles and codes of conduct enforced by the state which includes
sanctions
- E.g. Assault occasioning ABH under s47 OAPA 1861
Morals —> a system of values which are individual and stem from places such as peers,
parents and religion
Morality is NOT always reflected in the law e.g. Adultery is not a crime but is considered
immoral. But morals often have nothing to do with the law e.g. Road Traffic Act
1. Morals from religion are in the Law
- 10 commandments ‘thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal’ and these are crimes
now
- Judges subconsciously implement morality from religion into society e.g. Lord
Denning in Donoghue v Stevenson and the ‘neighbour principle’ from ‘love thy
neighbour’
- Aquinas and NL would agree that morals from religion should be implemented in
society
- BUT judges should not allow religious morals to interfere with their judgement as
this would be unjust
2. Laws reflect changing morals
- Law changes as morals change e.g. Abortion Act 1967 and Gay Marriage act
2013 —> but the law must take a stance because there is no consensus
- HOWEVER, often the law is late to adapting to moral norms e.g. R v R and inter-
martial rape, despite being considered immoral for a long time
- BUT law often speeds up morality e.g. Smoking Ban 2007 encouraging social
norms to develop to disagree with smoking
3. Autonomy or Intervention (Hart v Devlin)
- In Brown gay sadomasochism was not allowed to be consented to due to public
policy reasons
- Hart —> this is unfair as it interferes with personal and private lives; instead they
should just protect the public and stop exploitation
- JS Mill agree with the ‘Harm Principle’ ‘people should have autonomy to do what
they want so long as others are not harmed’
- Wolfenden committee report 1957 —> the law should not intervene in the
actions of private citizens
- BUT Devlin —> doing such actions, even in private can weaken the fabric of
society as there is no widely shared view of morality, only the law
- Also prevents pressure on healthcare
Page 2 of 9
, 4. Necessity
- ReA acceptable for one conjoined twin to die to save the other (Bentham/ Util
approach because allows for pleasure of the majority
- Dudley v Stevens men were convicted of murder BUT Bentham would disagree
with this outcome because the men on the boat took a utilitarian approach
- So law does not always agree with morality
5. Euthanasia
- Split moral consensus in society (pro Devlin)
- Pretty v DPP (not allowed), Tony Bland (yes euthanasia allowed via starving)
showing how the law struggles to find a position where to stand
- Judges say that euthanasia must be considered by Parliament
- Euthanasia has worked well in places like Switzerland BUT slippery slope
- New Euthanasia Bill —> law is following new moral consensus and accepting
euthanasia
Conclusion:
- Law works well to reflect morals of society
- Should continue to prevail to allow for consistency and good influence of morals
Page 3 of 9
, Law and Justice
Intro:
- Need for justice within the legal system
- Law—> set of principles and codes of conduct enforced by the state which
includes sanctions
- Justice —> describes as ‘Achieving a fair and proper outcome according to the
rules of the system’
A) Procedural justice through the judicial process e.g. equality from both sides
(Audi alterum partum)
B) Substantive justice which regards rules and outcomes in the law to be fair and
clear
C) Distributive justice which suggests that resources need to be distributed fairly
e.g. LASPO
1. Different theories of justice and disagreements (AO1)
- Aquinas —> natural Law system that services the common good
- Utilitarians —> justice is what achieves the most happiness for the most people
- Rawls —> justice is law creates under a ‘veil of ignorance’ to avoid inequalities
- Nozick —> justice is what allows people to keep what they earn (disagreeing with
current progressive tax laws)
- Marx —> justice is what allows for everything to be shared equally (agreeing with
progressive tax laws)
- Differing opinions e.g. Marx vs Nozick shows how there is no clear view of justice
2. Procedural justice/ juries
- Justice is within the law through procedures e.g. equality for both sides ‘Audi
alterum partem’ BUT both sides don’t always get justice bc cheaper lawyers are
less qualified
- ‘Equality of arms’ LASPO 2012 BUT means tested and harsh
- Juries are selected randomly (Rawls would agree as this is under a ‘veil of
ignorance’) showing justice BUT perhaps unjust that juries have jury equity and
can make perverse decisions e.g. Owen (ran over sons murder), is this just?
3. Vicarious Liability
- Could be argued as unjust on employers to suffer the consequences of
employee's actions despite explaining to employees what not to do (Rose v
Plenty)
- BUT this is in place to protect claimants e.g. creation of ‘akin to employment’,
could argue this is fair for them
4. Strict Liability for public policy reasons
Page 4 of 9
