A judge's dilemma: Does law always mean justice?

A poor farmer stands before the court. He is accused of theft. His crime? Breaking into a wealthy merchant’s storehouse and stealing grain. His reason? To feed his starving children.

The text of the law is clear. Theft carries at least two years in prison.

Judge Kwame Mensah looks down at the statute book on his desk, then up at the frail figure before him. The courtroom holds its breath. And in that silence, the question hangs heavy:

Does law always mean justice?

The Voice of Law

One voice says firmly: “The law is the law.”

This is the voice of legal positivism. For John Austin, law is simply the command of the sovereign, backed by the threat of punishment. Whether it is fair or unfair is beside the point. H.L.A. Hart added that law’s validity comes not from morality, but from the rules of the system itself, which recognizes it.

By this logic, the judge must jail the farmer. The law remains predictable. No one is above it.

History gives us echoes of this view. In R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), shipwrecked sailors killed and ate a cabin boy to survive. They pleaded necessity. But the court rejected them: murder was murder, however desperate the circumstances. The law stood firm, but many felt justice was lost.

The Voice of Justice

But another voice whispers softly: “Law must serve justice.”

This is the voice of natural law. Cicero called true law “right reason in agreement with nature.” 

Aquinas declared that an unjust law is no law at all. 

Aristotle spoke of equity, urging judges to soften rigid rules when they cause hardship.

In our own time, Ronald Dworkin argued that laws should be read not as dry commands, but as principles infused with fairness and dignity.

This voice guided German courts after the Second World War. In the infamous “Grudge informer” cases, citizens who had denounced neighbors under Nazi statutes claimed they had only “followed the law.” The courts refused to hide behind legality. They declared: laws that are cruel at their core cannot be treated as valid. Justice had to prevail.

If Judge Mensah listens to this voice, he will temper the statute with compassion. He will see beyond the word “theft” to the human reality of hunger.

The Dilemma

Two voices. Two truths. One decision.

The law says prison. Justice demands mercy.

Judge Mensah pauses, then delivers his ruling: community service and restitution, instead of prison.

Some applaud him as wise. Others mutter that he twisted the law. But this is the eternal judge’s dilemma. The tightrope between the letter of the law and the spirit of justice.

Why It Matters

This story is fictional. But the dilemma is real.

Every day, judges confront the same tension. Every law student studies it. And every citizen lives under it.

Legal positivism gives us order and certainty, that law is separate from morality. Natural law ties law to morality and fairness. Real judging means walking between the two, preserving the law’s authority while keeping its soul alive.

Of course, real judgments involve much more: precedent, constitutional interpretation, policy, and procedure. But at its heart, this is our dilemma as students of law: the uneasy, fascinating relationship between law and justice. And yet, it forces us to ask: what do these two words “law” and “justice” even mean in the first place?