Modulul II

LAW AND MORALITY

Unitatea de învăţare:
1. Development of law
2. Law and morality

Bibliografie:
1. Badea, Simina, English for Law Students – Curs practic de terminologie juridică şi limba
engleză, Ediţia a III-a revăzută, Editura Universitaria, Craiova, 2010, p. 6-13.
2. Lister, R.; K. Veth, Dicţionar juridic român-englez, englez-român, Traducere: Roxana
Dinulescu, Editura Niculescu, Bucureşti, 2010.
3. *** Oxford Dictionary of Law, 6th edition, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2006.

Obiectivele modulului
Dupǎ studiul acestei unitǎţi de învǎţare veţi reuşi sǎ:
 înţelegeţi aspecte juridice noi: evoluţia dreptului, relaţia dintre drept şi morală
 vă familiarizaţi cu tema prin activităţi aplicative
 vă dezvoltaţi abilităţile de comunicare în limba engleză pe teme cu caracter juridic

Development of law
Society evolves and so does law. Even primitive societies felt the need for rules,
rooted in traditions and customs. A sort of law – a blend of custom, morality, religious ideals
and magic rituals and beliefs – governed the simplest communities. In the absence of courts
and legislature, the supreme authorities were the chief and the gods. Kinship and the sharing
of the same beliefs and superstitions bonded together the members of a tribe.
Early law was fundamentally custom based. There were two types of wrongs: against
the tribe and against individuals, the latter being usually avenged by the family of the victim.
The customs, beliefs or needs of primitive times established a rule or a formula.
Generally, over the centuries, the custom or belief was forgotten, but the rule remained,
adapting itself to the new reasons and entering on a new career. Every time, the old form
receives a new content, then the form modifies itself to fit the meaning which it has received.
This is how law evolves.

It is commonly known that the early forms of legal procedure were grounded in
vengeance. Modern writers have thought that the Roman law started from the blood
feud, and all the authorities agree that the German law began in that way. The feud
led to the composition, at first optional, then compulsory, by which the feud was
bought off. The gradual encroachment of the composition may be traced in the Anglo-
Saxon laws, and the feud was pretty well broken up, though not extinguished, by the
time of William the Conqueror. The killings and house-burning of an earlier day
became the appeals of mayhem and arson. The appeals de pace et plagis and of
mayhem became, or rather were in substance the action of trespass which is still
familiar to lawyers. But as the compensation recovered in the appeal was the
alternative of vengeance, we might expect to find its scope limited to the scope of
vengeance. Vengeance imports a feeling of blame, and an opinion, however distorted,
can hardly go very far beyond the case of a harm intentionally inflicted: even a dog
 distinguishes between being stumbled over and being kicked. (W. Holmes, Jr. – The
Common Law)

Law and morality

A lawmaker may certainly respond to public opinion or other pressures, and a formal
law may prohibit what is morally wrong and unacceptable. Thus, the relationship of law to
morals is crucial in order to understand the law. The rules of morality depend on the force of
public opinion, but they are not enforced by the courts.
Any legal system is influenced by traditional ideas of right and wrong. Most people
would condemn murder, theft regardless of what the law says. Yet, what is considered
immoral is not necessarily illegal. For example, lying to a friend may be immoral, but is rarely
illegal.

Discussion:
The case of the shipwrecked sailors
Three sailors on an ocean-going freighter were cast adrift in a life raft after
their ship sank during a storm in the Atlantic Ocean. The ship went down so suddenly
that there was no time to send out an S.O.S. As far as the three sailors knew, they were
the only survivors. In the raft they had no food or water. They had no fishing gear or
other equipment that might be used to get food from the ocean.
After recovering from the shock of the shipwreck, the three sailors began to
discuss their situation. Dudley, the ship’s navigator, figured that they were at least one
thousand miles from land and that the storm had blown them far from where any ships
would normally pass. Stephens, the ship’s doctor, indicated that without food they
could not live longer than thirty days. The only nourishment they could expect was
from any rain that might fall from time to time. He noted, however, that if one of the
three died before the others, the other two could live awhile longer by eating the body
of the third.
On the twenty-fifth day, the third sailor, Brooks, who by this time was
extremely weak, suggested that they all draw lots and that the loser be killed and eaten
by the other two. Both Dudley and Stephens agreed. The next day lots were drawn and
Brooks lost. At this point, Brooks objected and refused to consent. However, Dudley
and Stephens decided that Brooks would die soon anyway, so they might as well get it
over with. After thus agreeing, they killed and ate Brooks.
Five days later, Dudley and Stephens were rescued by a passing ship and
brought to port. After recovering from their ordeal, they were placed on trial for
murder.
The state in which they were tried had the following law: Any person who
deliberately takes the life of another is guilty of murder. (from Street Law)

Test de autoevaluare:
1. How would you describe early forms of law and legal procedure? – 2 puncte
2. Is there a relation between law and morality? – 2 puncte
3. Should Dudley and Stephens be tried for murder? What would you have done if you
had been one of them? – 2 puncte
4. As an attorney for Dudley and Stephens, what arguments would you make on their
behalf/ for their defense? As an attorney for the state, what arguments would you make on the
state’s behalf/ for their prosecution? – 2 puncte
5. If they are convicted, what should their punishment be? – 2 puncte
 Fill-in exercise
Fill in the blank spaces with derivatives from the words in brackets:

1. The judicial function lies in the centre of any legal system, mainly dealing with the … of
disputes. (adjudicate)
2. It ensures that the … parties submit to adjudication. (dispute)
3. One of the functions of law is to prevent … conduct. Law also governs the relations
between individuals, providing facilities for private … (desire, arrange)
4. Law is needed for the … of disputes found in courts and tribunals. (settle)
5. A law usually prohibits what is morally wrong and …. Therefore, the relationship of law to
… is crucial in order to understand the law. (accept, moral)
6. Mores represent the accepted traditional customs and … of a particular social group. (use)
7. Violations of mores had as a consequence the ... of various sanctions. (impose)
8. Public opinion refers to the public consensus, as with respect to an issue or situation. It
reflects the attitudes and ... of a group of people with regard to issues concerning everybody.
(prefer)
9. In spite of the defeat, the ... was still high. (moral)
10. We are not in the position to ... on his behaviour. (moral)

Grile:

1. One sometimes wonders if there is any ... in politics.

a. moral
b. morale
c. morality

2. The word vengeance means:

a. revenge
b. venture
c. avenger

3. “Blood feud” refers to:

a. long-lasting quarrel between people or families
b. corruption of blood
c. massacre

4. Encroachment has the meaning:

a. breach
b. fulfillment
c. development.

5. Mayhem has as a synonym:

a. the month of May
b. violent disorder
c. harm