Although we all have an understanding of what law is, and generally why it’s appropriate that it should be in place to serve and regulate our conduct in society, we seldom think of what law actually means in an everyday context.  What is law for the average Joe in the street?  How does law impact on our lives from day to day?  Indeed, is the law a distant concept with which we find it hard to relate?  In this article we will look at some of the fundamental ways law operates in society, in addition to the nature of the law as we know it.

For some people, they feel as though the law is there merely to protect their interests, and that they have no need for daily interaction.  However, they assume that if the day comes where their behaviour is called into question, the law will operate, the course of justice will be run, and the will of the people will be fulfilled.  This is perhaps a naïve interpretation of the function of law, and indeed the way it operates in our lives throughout the day.  For instance, at the top level we have the constitution, establishing parameters within which the government can and cannot act to protect the citizens of our nation.  That has an overwhelming effect on the way in which our government and indeed our country is run, which has a knock on effect on everything we do throughout the day and how we do it.  Even at a local level, the law interacts with the services we are provided, the jobs we work and pretty much everything to do with the lives we lead.  A distant concept?  I don’t think so.

The law does not just operate in criminal spheres, nor is it confined to merely constitutional matters and the distribution of power.  Law is a significantly more sophisticated tool in the orchestration of the day-to-day organisation of society, through regulating not only personal conduct but also the way we act in business situations.  Take for example the everyday task of boarding a train.  The law regulates many aspects of this feat: (1) the criminal law and the constitution permits us to board public transport.  (2) The constitution permits us to make contract with another.  (3) The laws of contract permit us to form a contract for transport with the train company,  and ensure that that contract is fulfilled.  (4) The laws of contract and tort allow us to board without fear of injury, or with remedy should the worst happen.  Finally the law of ownership and currency allows us to hand over money in consideration for this service, which is of value to the other contracting party.  In fact, the law regulates just about everything we do, and is vital in doing so to ensure the smooth running of community and every aspect of our lives.

The law is not some abstract notion that can and will protect us when we need to rely on it.  The law is an integral part of democratic life, and something which regulates our conduct, and in essence allows us to act according to our own desires within reason.  Some may think the law is too restrictive in certain areas, but it works.  The law serves its function as regulating our behaviour very well, and if it doesn’t?  We can change it.

The fact is, law has been an important part of society since it began, with implied legal and social orders and boundaries that could not be crossed.  Today, it is a sophisticated network of guidelines and regulations which is adapted to shape the way we live our lives from one day to the next.  There is no doubt that the law is important to the citizen, and plays a profound impact on the lives of the people on a daily basis.

In our private lives, the area of law we will experience the most, either directly or indirectly would have to be the criminal law.  Not necessarily through contravening its principals, the individual citizen will more commonly encounter its breadth in the course of their everyday lives, considering as a factor the legal ramifications of any desired conduct or decision in the decision making process.  For most of us, we tend to live our lives within these predetermined boundaries with no second thought or question as to the morality of the prohibited option nor the moral authority behind it.  In this article, it is proposed to look at the nature and scope of the criminal law in our society, and to discuss whether as an entity it is too intrusive, or whether it is naturally a required aspect of regulating society.

It is often said academically that the citizen enjoys freedom to act as he wishes in his life, subject to the regulatory provisions of the criminal law and the criminal justice system.  It is thought that as citizens of a particular country, largely at freedom to choose where we live in the world, we impliedly accept the authority of the relevant legal provisions which, for the most part, regulate on a moral level.  Of course there are exceptions, i.e. criminal laws of a regulatory or secondary nature which do not directly bear any moral message, such as speeding limits or parking restrictions.  So, then, to what extent does the criminal law reflect morality, and further from what source is this morality derived?

The criminal law is said to operate in mind of the public good, and the benefit of society.  It could, therefore, be argued to be crossing the boundaries into serious restrictions on liberty when it regulates personal conduct like drug use which may not have any wider impact than on that of the person indulging accordingly.  Why should the criminal law impose restrictions on what a person can do with his or her own body?  Surely our own freewill is a good enough justification for acting outwith the scope of the law in these types of scenario?

Furthermore an interesting area of the criminal law is potential liability for omissions.  In this sense, the citizen can actually be punished without acting at all in a specific way.  This takes the criminal law beyond a regulatory framework for the public good into an actual coercive force to make people positively act in a certain way.  For example, in some jurisdictions there is a legal duty to report a road traffic accident.  This means a citizen who is aware of the occurrence of such will have committed a criminal offence where he does not act in the prescribed manner.  Again, this is surely affording a broad scope to the criminal law, which may be seen by some as intruding on the fundamental freedoms and values upon which most modern nations were built.

It is interesting to consider the real impact of the criminal law, and the sheer breadth of conduct it regulates.  From the objectively morally wrong to the less obvious cases of imposition of liability, the criminal law places severe restrictions on the general principal of absolute liberty, which is clearly the subject of much academic and philosophical debate.

The European Convention on Human Rights has seen vast changes to the legal framework of countries across Europe.  By imposing fundamental freedoms and liberties in an indefeasible form, it has created a host of legal problems and issues for courts to tackle in an attempt to improve human rights.  Distinct from the US, which already retains fundamental freedoms through its definitive constitution, much of Europe in particular the UK doesn’t have the same codified provisions for its citizens.  This has now been revolutionised by the ratification of the European Convention (ECHR), which sets out certain primary standards that must be attained in relation to each individual citizen.  In this article, we will look at the advantages of the ECHR, and the wide-ranging impact it has had on the various constitutions around Europe.

The European Convention on Human Rights was established as an international treaty to afford a uniform standard of human rights treatment across Europe.  Covering basic freedoms like the right to life through to trickier issues such as the right to liberty and the right to marry, ECHR has had an astonishing impact on Europe both legally and politically.  In passing legislation, European governments have to as a matter of law legislate in accordance with the provisions contained within the ECHR.  This means parliaments of signatory countries are being bound by their predecessors to legislate in a particular way, which has ruled out a number of would-be pledges and meant the reversal of certain national laws.

One area where this has caused problems is in abortion.  The perpetual morality debate aside, abortion has been held to contravene the right to life provision in certain European countries.  Although there is still great scope for challenge, this could potentially cause problems in the coming years as more and more cases of this nature are brought before the European court.  Another major problem area is that of same sex marriages.  The universal right to marry means that any provision stopping same sex marriage anywhere in Europe could potentially be struck down as illegal, requiring nations to actively realign their current provisions to avoid any discrimination.  For this reason, the UK, amongst others, have taken proactive measures to permit same-sex marriages to avoid the embarrassment of a public ruling against them.  This obviously raises problems of national power and freedom: nations are now utterly bound by the principles of European ‘liberty’, whether they like it or not.

Thankfully this social and legal upheaval is working towards a more liberty-orientated Europe.  It is certainly taking time, and given the fact that the ECHR is over half a century old, its impacts are becoming more and more apparent as time wears on and as courts are presented with modern challenges located within the context of the original ECHR provisions.  Additionally, the European Convention on Human Rights is being regularly updated and amended to provide a steadfast constitution for the citizen whilst retaining the flexibility to adapt to contemporary situations.  Although the ECHR and the provisions contained within it have met stiff opposition throughout their lifetime, most would now agree that the level of individual certainty provided by these fundamental freedoms is making for a better quality of life and reducing the scope for discrimination and prejudice across Europe.