May the blindfold of Lady Justice be placed on her scales.

One symbolism of Lady Justice’s blindfold is purity from the “misleading evidence of the senses” (C Ripa, Baroque and Rococo Pictorial Imagery” (E. Maser ed.1971) at 120). This view suggests that the Law should be impartial without regard to personal factors such as wealth, status, race or gender (“What does Lady Justice Symbolise?”, Watts). Its ultimate implication is that subject and subjectiveness must be hidden in the pursuit of objective justice.

This notion must be reconsidered. Perception, subjectiveness and subjectivity are as inescapable as they are invaluable. Though this may be the case in innumerable ways, I will highlight two. 

First, Law’s humanity. Contrary to the suggestions of legal “scientificism” in our institutions (the apparent daughter of both legal formalism and capitalistic state utilitarianism), Lady Justice cannot be separated from her own humanity and Humanities. Indeed, law effects and affects, and is created, interpreted, criticised and extinguished by human individuals. 

Peters and Olsen hint at this truth with their shared assertion of the interconnectedness between law and literature. Olsen posits that so multifaceted and varied are the interactions between the two more methods of analysis must be considered, including humanities research, narrative studies and so on. Similarly, considering “interdisciplinarity”, Peters evocatively concludes: “if law and literature per se does not survive … in its end may be its beginning.” If we case to consider literature and law as wholly distinct fields and accept the inherent interconnectedness between the two, we reap more from our study of it.

Second, the humanity of Law’s subjects. No longer can the notion that all are “equal before the law” hold. As pointed out in a previous essay, “Identity”, there exists the oppressor and the oppressed. To do justice and balance her scales, Law must now open her eyes, perhaps inwardly so, to power, wealth, status, race and gender.

But Law’s exclusions are not merely nihilistic; these visions matter. They matter because Law can uplift, nurture and heal the powerless and oppressed. Though Graeme’s response essay “Law is a Woman (Alexa, play Ariana Grande)” does not perceive this, I vehemently assert Law’s hope. Referring to Thorp v Mackerel in “Identity”, I concluded: 

“Least of all, we cannot escape the fundamentality that Law has the potential to remedy wrongs by raising an ordinary walking two miles from the court to a dignitary deserving of protection and respect”.

In this spirit, may Lady Justice’s sword come forth, cull her blindfold, and raise her gaze.

(399 words excluding citations)