"Justice is blind but the law is not."

Toward the beginning of the semester, we all went to go watch a performance called Iola’s Southern Fields. It was a powerful performance overall, however there is one line in particular that sticks out to me, even weeks later.

When discussing the lynching of one of her friends, Ida B. Wells proclaims that  “Justice is blind but the law is not.” When I first heard this line, it confused me. I could not figure out how the law and justice could be separated from one another. I had assumed that they always went hand in hand with one another. Upon further thought and investigation, I realized that at times they do coexist with one another successfully. Theoretically speaking, both should coexist and balance with one another on every occasion. However, there are many instances in which they do not because of a flawed justice system and institutional racism.

The dictionary definition of justice includes “righteousness, equitableness, or moral righteousness… the moral principal determining just conduct… the administering of just punishment or reward.” In this statement, justice is said to be blind in the fact that it is assumed that all will receive equitable amounts of justice for their wrongdoings. It is assumed that the authorities will administer just punishment or reward for mistakes or successes. If justice is truly blind then every person will receive the same amount for the same crime or success. However, in light of recent events it is obvious that this is not the case. It has become obvious that not all people are equal under the protection and sanctions of the law. Another interpretation of justice being blind is that not that it gives each person just amounts of punishment, but also that it is blind in that it ignores the rights of some. This means that at times, justice is absent, or blind, from some punishment. Justice ignores the people and is blind to the situation by remaining uninvolved.

Law on the other hand, has an opposite interpretation, in my opinion. Law is not blind in the fact that it sees the differences in people and acts accordingly. The law is not blind because it has to see in order to carry out its purpose. At times, this seeing helps to provide justice to those who deserve it. But at the same time there are other implications to the law not being blind. At times, the law sees details of people, such as their race, and this then affects how they are treated and how their justice is served. One example of this can be seen through the Jim Crow south and the lynching of African American men. In the eyes of the law, if an African American man were to force himself upon a white woman, he would be lynched. However, forcing himself upon a white woman also included whistling, looking, or speaking incorrectly. In these instances, the law was not blind and saw each man for their race. Their race became a determining factor in the interpretation of the law and this in turn affected their justice.

This statement forced me to think about what it means to receive justice from the law. It displayed that even though they might not always work hand in hand; they are both important concepts to understand and be able to apply.