I was brought up in the austere conditions of post-war Britain, with ration books and few luxuries.  Religion retained some power; the Royal Family was held in high esteem; and even politicians had sufficient honour to resign when caught out in some irregularity. 

Society as I knew it was founded on justice, without which life would revert to the lawless days of the Wild West as portrayed at the cinema every Saturday morning.  There seemed little point to Plato’s academic discourse in The Republic in which he had Socrates debating whether justice or injustice was the more rewarding.  It did not help that his argument seemed illogical and anything but empirical.

Nowadays, of course, we are all much more cynical.  With good reason:  high profile judgements are overturned; police chiefs admit that they see little point in wasting manpower on certain laws which are difficult to enforce; and we have spawned a culture that shows admiration for those who break the rules and ‘get away with it’.  Indeed, television commercials across a wide range of products reward individuals who practice deceit on their partners and friends.  Well, it’s a laugh, innit? 

Recently, two television programmes profiled our attitudes to justice and injustice.  The first was an in-depth study of a jury on a murder trial.  The programme focused on the private lives of the jurors, and we realised that their personal traumas left them ill-prepared to debate the evidence and decide the fate of the accused in a rational manner.  In this fictional depiction justice appeared to be a random factor.

The second programme was a drama/documentary on the life of George Carman, QC.  As portrayed, this eminent barrister practiced gross injustice in his private life but his reputation was left intact by a fearful press.  In his public trials he fought for his clients, in accordance with the best principles of our judicial system, but with scant regard for evidence or truth.  He was quite prepared to bully witnesses and manipulate the jury not to elicit truth but to achieve a successful outcome in his case.  Carman was, presumably, an extremist, but the clear message was that those on whom justice relies are not themselves concerned with justice.

Long after Plato, Dickens had Mr. Bumble declaring: “the law is an ass”, but this goes beyond law and strikes at the fabric of society.  The civilised world was outraged by the events of September 11, at what was seen as an attack on democracy.  As a result, terrorists are now being targeted by America and her allies.  But the way in which injustice is being allowed to eclipse justice is equally damaging to democracy, and this is a war that we seem not to have recognised.  If a Society is responsible for creating its own structure, then we have the judicial system we deserve.  Only by changing our attitudes can we improve matters.

Plato condemned injustice by relying on a belief in the human soul.  Without this belief, not much in evidence in modern thinking, it is difficult to refute his earlier statement: ‘What I say is ‘just’ or right’ means nothing but what is in the interest of the stronger party.”  Is this the end of democracy as we know it?  Not the end with a terrorist bang, but with a social whimper?