The law should be blind, and it would be just. That sentence was given us an idea about justice that it should be attain in law enforcement. The idea has prescriptive as a principle of law, it was directed to idealistic circumstances. The questions are; what is there gap between idealistic circumstances and realistic world? Is it true that the law is still blind today? The facts have show to us discrepancies between reality and norm. The discrepancies have talked about applying the law as tools of punish outlaw. It is not wrong (and may be correct), but what have law created justice? It seems dividing between law and justice.
Justice?It is not popular word, when we are talking about in law enforcement. The law maker (legislator, judge) and law enforcer are not considering justice. The law makers are merely produce the law which it is purpose regulates condition that the conditions are not regulate by law yet. The law enforcers are applying law based on law itself. They do not consider context of infringement. It is mean different situation drive certain act which the acts are fulfill the article of the law. On other hand, when the law has enforced to all situation, it would generate injustice.
The blindness of the law could drive to recognize the law enforcement that it mentioned above. The law would apply all breach of law. It will describe as certainty of law. The law enforcers strict apply the law, there is no intolerance. Their acts look like fair. Is it true? Justice is not only talk about equal behavior. It is prescribed to how the law has enforced properly. The law would be proper when the law has applied precisely deserve with infringement. It is not mean that law must be consistent with the word of law. The law must consider the context of act that it has done before. The law has made for human, and it is not human life for law.
The applying law through consistency with the law will stipulate blindness. The blindness means [1] it is never considers contexts behind the act or behavior. The behavior has sought strictly, it has not considered surroundings situation that the actor had influenced to do it. The surrounding situation could induce certain act than other situation. [2] The law enforcer has only read the law as like as written down. The elements of the law have applied steadfastly, and it has ignored non-law aspects. The non-law aspects might be important to observe the situation.
The ways have used law as mention above thrust blindness of law. It is cause law without soul. Law is look like a machine. The law has work like command giver, and human being should obey. Yes, without obey could create chaos or disorder in society. But should we obey the law without soul? The soul is mean strength of mind to use the law with consider human situation. The law had made for human. The law had avoid human situation, it has became machine. Human have been slave by the law.
The soul of law is justice. We could not only consider order or consistency of law, on the other hand we are ignoring justice. Justice is not about applying law with equal rule. It is considering other aspect beyond the applying law. The law is a social phenomenon, so it cannot exclude from society. It is include a situation that effect efficacy of law. For example corruption, it has been crucial problems for many years. The law enforcement could not eradicate it. There are deterrent effects that it can prevent corruption. So, should the judge do unchanged ways when they have punished the corruptor?
The question is still significant; should we maintain law still blind?