The Myth of Moral Justice: Why Our Legal System Fails to Do What's Right – Why Lawyers Face Distrust and What It Reveals About Our Courts

by Thane Rosenbaum

We are obsessed with watching television shows and feature films about lawyers, reading legal thrillers, and following real-life trials. Yet, at the same time, most of us don't trust lawyers and hold them and the legal system in very low esteem. In The Myth of Moral Justice , law professor and novelist Thane Rosenbaum suggests that this paradox stems from the fact that citizens and the courts are at odds when it comes to their definitions of justice. With a lawyer's expertise and a novelist's sensability, Rosenbaum tackles complicated philosophical questions about our longing for moral justice. He also takes a critical look at what our legal system does to the spirits of those who must come before the law, along with those who practice within it.

Genres: Law, Nonfiction

384 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 2004

Reviews

[Joel Simon · Rating 3 out of 5]

I found that this book made several very good points. It is very controversial int he world of law firms, which means it must make a lot of valid points that hit too close to home for some firms. However, I felt that some parts of the book were redundant and the author (who is a good friend of mine -- Sorry, Thane) was stretching a bit to make the book long enough to be a book rather than a lenghty critcal essay. Neverhteless, I think this book is worthwhile reading for the perspective it raises and bringing into public view some issues that need to be addressed.

[Dee · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ugh. I can’t with this book. It has many faults, such redundancy, but my main issue is with most of the ideas it contains.

He wants the courts to be guided by morality, instead of my laws. First, where does he think the laws came from, if not from legislative bodies being guided by morality precepts among other underpinnings? Second, whose morality? Mine? Yours? His?

Another of his ideas is that what people really want from the justice system is an apology and that we essentially wouldn’t need a money compensation/penalty system if tortfeasors/criminals just made a genuine apology instead. Why people who have harmed you or your family physically or financially would be willing and/or able to make a “genuine apology” is unclear, but don’t worry, Rosenbaum has the answer.

“Getting clients to apologize and accept responsibility for their actions is what a righteous lawyer would do…” (p. 323, paperback edition,2005).
Rosenbaum gives no guidance on how the “righteous lawyer” would get this to occur, given clients are not children and have admittedly no incentive to do so.

The U.S. justice system has plenty of faults, but Rosenbaum’s version would just introduce new ones. I read this book hoping for some interesting ideas or suggestions for judicial improvement. Instead all I got was a bunch of half-baked, poorly-thought-out recommendations. This was a total waste of my time.

[Andrew Burin · Rating 1 out of 5]

Unfortunately, neither Mr. Rosenbaum's exploits as a lawyer or a novelist are particularly interesting. This is a problem b/c every single chapter seems to follow the format of "As a lawyer... I ____, but as a novelist, I _____." Not worth your time.

[Scott Caplan · Rating 2 out of 5]

I agree with some of the things Rosenbaum says in this book, but feel he makes very superficial arguments for them. That said, he points out interesting things, some of which you'll find out in a first-year law school curriculum, some of which you won't. Which ones you will depends on your profs, but one for me was the cultural differences regarding apologies between the US and Japan. That idea in particular was very interesting to think about regarding the ideas and legal philosophical approaches that my Torts prof had.

Overall, it will provoke thought, but not much else. For a book by some one who constantly reminds his readers that he's an author, it should be much better-written. He abuses references to the Holocaust, and makes value judgments which are not obvious but states them as such.

All that said, it's not heavy reading, and it is at times interesting and at even rarer times profound. I would recommend it for somebody interested in uncommonly examined fundamental aspects of the common law, or law students who think that the 1L curriculum is too system-affirming.