βThe law is harsh, but it is the lawβ (π³π¦ππ¦π·π’π―π΅ π°π³ πͺπ³π³π¦ππ¦π·π’π―π΅?)
The famous maxim, dura lex sed lex or other known as the Brocard (law) simply means as βthe law is harsh, but it is the law,β can be traced to Bishop Burchard from Worms, Germany, who compiled 20 volumes of Ecclesiastical Rules during the 11th century.
Despite that the principle is archaic, it is still generally taken for believing its relevance in handling present social and moral issues. It pertains among citizens that they must respectfully obey the law in a sovereign state for its functions, and its genuine function is to apply where justice is demanded. First, what is law? It is no simple task on defining the law, most especially when you are looking for the universally acceptable definition of law. In some dictionary you may find the definition as such: βthe system of rules which a particular country or community recognizes as regulating the actions of its members and which it may enforce by the imposition of penaltiesβ¦β But if we examine it closer by dissecting what the law is and how it is formed, what the general criteria is to consider upon deriving for a concept of systematized rules as a law, and thus for it to be just, fair, and right. Law is nothing more than what must correspond to the moral doctrines of rational beings. Morality is grounded on human nature, hence the law is also the product of human nature. Through the course in the history of mankind, it is human nature that endeavors for freedom. Also, the law in a sovereign state is the ultimate product of expression for freedom by its constituents. However, the past stages of humanity are radically different compared in the present stage. Men from the past thought and acted in systematically different ways. If men from the past had already subdued their struggles, and had attained freedom, why does humanity up until in the present still strive for freedom? Does it imply that the kind of freedom as what men from the past had realized and attained represses the men in the present? In other words, humanity has always endeavored for a higher (developed) freedom β an insatiable desire.
We have already mentioned that the law in a sovereign state is the product from attaining freedom, passed by its legislative bodies or initiated immediately by its citizens. But Baron Montesquieu identified two kinds of corruption in his book The Spirit of Laws, VI. 12 (Lβesprit de lois): βOne, when the people no longer observes the laws; the other, when the people is corrupted by the laws; an incurable disease, because it is in the remedy itself.β Montesquieu also said that the law can contribute to the corruption of morals. If the law corrupts the people, then this law must be repealed due to its failing adherence to the moral customs, and therefore it should not be universalized. Whereas the maxim Salus populi est suprema lex (Let the good of the people be the supreme law) by Cicero in his De Legibus established the foundation that the good of the people shall prevail. When one asserts dura lex sed lex for justifying the consequences by the otherβs action. Is it in accord for the good of the people? The task of the citizens however must discern whether the laws are just or unjust/incorrupt. In many instances, people have invoked justice, yet it is, as if their motives are for genuine justice, and they have often taken justice without being specific on what they mean. It might be the motives are concealed under the cloaked of justice, but inside, the hidden desire is to execute revenge politely; if the law grants the opportunity for anyone to do so, then the identification of corruption by Montesquieu can also be reversed, i.e. the people corrupts the law and the people itself are corrupt. Since the law is vulnerable for corruption and falls short for appropriateness, and with the emergence of the two classification of Montesquieu on corruption, then it can be said that the people corrupts itself by means of itself. It is self-defeating as soon conflicts may arise and the struggling class will be enforced to extend itself towards freedom and to fight for the good.
People have subsumed for a higher (developed) freedom because there are everyday struggles. When there is struggle, there is something that has to be fought for freedom (yet men cannot attain what is truly absolute, only what is absolute in its current state or the process/course of itself is the absolute). However, it does not imply that the consequences are at an impasse, because when something is overcome, another higher form of struggle awaits to be fought for.
So much for that, if dura lex sed lex is taken literally to justify the existence of the laws without considering further query or appropriateness, by assuming the reason of harshness is due to the fact that it is the law, and postulated as infallible, therefore it certainly begs the question, i.e. fallacious. Whatever be the case, if dura lex sed lex is invoked when certain circumstances arise, the principle has to be recognized as long as the purpose must only be a reminder that there are consequences for every action by the free agent that varies in the spirit of our times; hence, it does not always even mean the legality equates justice, nor can it be necessary at all times as to be the sole indicator for distinguishing what is just and unjust.
