Society & Lifestyle >
Social Values & Norms
Get a Widget for this title
RSS FeedPersonal liberty vs. community order and law: Which should prevail?
Results so far:
| Liberty | 48% | 152 votes | Total: 320 votes | |
| Order | 52% | 168 votes |
Liberty
Write now
Print
Invite a writer™
Add to FavoritesIN A CONTEST OF IDEALS BETWEEN INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY AND COMMUNITY: INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY IS CONSTITUTIONALLY GUARANTEED.
The Preamble to the U.S. Constitution introduces to the citizen and foreign-born alike that certain attributes of citizenship are guaranteed: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Constitution explains what it means by that Declaration of Independence calling liberty unalienable. These enumerated guarantees are so fundamental they are given to us by our Creator. For this reason, liberty cannot be denied as an individual right.
This right to individual liberty has not been interpreted to include the meaning that conduct that might rise to the level of license can be swept into it's meaning. While there is no bright line test as to when liberty becomes license, the courts have had to draw a test by which to determine such things. The court, as the final interpreter of all things constitutional, is the social instrument devised by humankind over centuries of trial and error, to adjudicate how to weigh when individual liberty can be restrained.
The court not only interprets the meaning of the constitution, it stands as an institution intended to keep order in the community through the operation of law. Under that mandate, courts operate on a case by case basis. Where the case has been elevated from just a local matter to one looking to make a difference, that local struggle can ask a higher court to decide if the ruling by the local court can withstand a challenge to it.
For this and other reasons, only a higher court can set a legal precedent in it's rulings.
An example of rulings that create precedent are those where the facts of the case look as if there is a tension so strong between the individual right to liberty vs law and order in the community, license might take hold. Where facts are reviewed and the law applied by a higher court process, we can see the test the court must consider. First and foremost, the court is, under law, to presume the lower ruling was correct. At first blush, you might think "Hey. wait-a- minute, let's start fresh. The higher court should start from scratch and look at the whole thing again." This is where all those millennia used for trial and error intended to settle things once and for all comes in. So, it is well settled that like an eye-witness, the judge and\or jury who saw the evidence and testimony on the matter first hand might just realize subtleties in witness testimony or evidence that is suspect even though legally admissible.
Reading a transcript of what took place in real life can not be as in touch with the parties and issues as the first responder can. The local court is like the first responder in an auto accident. The participants in that process see what happened. They have a highly trustworthy perspective, A higher court will grant them that benefit. So the legal presumption exists. But, it can be overcome.
And that is how presumption works from the very beginning of any presumption in the law. So it is that a legal presumption is an important protection even in the local courts. One such presumption is a presumption of innocent until proven guilty in a criminal matter. Another is a presumption that individual liberty is so fundamental, to challenge another's right to personal liberty carries an extra step or burden to it. In the case of interfering with another's liberty, whoever seeks to inhibit that liberty must show a "compelling state interest".
So, there you have it. Even on the local level, the very first effort to inhibit individual liberty in protection of the community must show a "compelling" interest. A "compelling" interest is similar to saying an "extraordinary" interest and not just a casual one. The community when pitted against the individual is held back by law from putting the community interest first.
Learn more about this author, Judy Joyce.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Order
It is a basic human need to have free will. What does this personal liberty entail? Personal liberty is a need that all individuals have to decide what they will do with their own lives. There are many aspects to personal liberty, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion. A person will often struggle for these basic rights that they consider innate.
An individual will often fight others who encroach upon the freedom to make decisions for their own welfare. Personal welfare and self determination is usually the first item on a person's list of priorities. An example can be seen in the case of youth and teenagers who often resent parental involvement in their lives.
Nevertheless an individual does not often make decisions that are wise for a group without taking into consideration the mind and will of that group. Within a family for example, leaders such as parents and guardians make decisions for the group. But when the mind and will of the family members are taken into consideration there is more likely to be order and peace within the family unit, especially when the children are older. This classic example can be compared to society as a whole.
Social groups work on the same principle. There has to be balance in decision making. No one likes their freedoms taken away. But what about the case where an individual's personal likes or dislikes infringes upon a group, or when a group's welfare is in danger. For example, we have seen many instances in the past decade when some persons have taken what they thought were their personal liberties and used it to infringe on society. In the case of the Columbine murders, in the United States; some youths thought it acceptable to impose their own form of vigilantism upon their school mates and teachers. This was a disaster that impacted many lives.
There are just laws and unjust laws. Some laws are inherently faulty and are placed in the law books on the whims of individuals who have no forethought at the consequence on society. Nevertheless, it is a general rule that most groups or the majority tend to make rules that govern the individual more fairly than an individual's whims upon others and society. In a group there tends to be checks and balances that tend to keep order and protect the individual.
When a group comes to a consensus it is usually derived by discussion and the minds of many individuals have come to play. Discussion is usually involved and it is more likely to be just laws. There are some instances nevertheless where groups are directed out of fear and by unjust leaders who have an inordinate amount of influence on the group. In such cases the laws enacted may be unjust and infringe on individual rights and the community.
Should an individual's personal liberties prevail for the most part? It depends on the circumstance. For the most parts the community usually protects the rights of the individual, but because no law is perfect in every instance there will be times when an individual's rights are violated. In such a case an individual should have avenues for recourse and remuneration. Nevertheless, in order to keep law an order and the safety of the group it is best for community law and order to prevail.
s
Learn more about this author, Bernadette Jasmin.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Difference of opinion? Debate now.
- Social Values & Norms
- Is humanity prepared for what the future holds?
- Should society measure "progress" not just by increases in GDP, but rather through a set of more precise quality of life indicators?
- Should US citizens focus less on material wealth and more on quality of life?
- Is justice defined by the powerful?
- Pornography: Harmless fun?
- Is morality going out of style in today's society?
