Application Of The Natural Law Theory To The Trial Of Tom Robertston

Introduction

The Trial of Tom Robertston is one of the most controversial in the world of literature and law. This is because there are many theories of law that can be applied to the case in order to determine whether the trial would have been able to proceed fairly. Below we will be analyzing specifically the naturalism theory and what it entails. Additionally, shall be seeing whether the trial would have had a different outcome in South Africa during Apartheid if naturalism was applied and how it fits in into the facts of the case. 

Tom Roberston trial

Tom Roberston was a black man in the novel “To Kill A Mockingbird”, and he was accused of sexually and physically abusing a white girl by the name of Mayella Ewell. 

According to Tom, Mayella would always bother him by asking him to do small housekeeping and maintenance jobs. This would always happen when Mayellas father was not present. And Tom would find that there was actually nothing to fix. The accused claims that Mayella advanced herself onto him and even attempted to kiss him until he pushed her away and left. 

Mayella, however, claims it was Tom who physically beat her and then raped her. There was no evidence that proves that Tom is guilty of any charges. Further, it was proven that it was a left handed person who assaulted Mayella. However, Tom has lost all use of his left hand due to previous accident he was in. It is also clear that Tom is subjected to a lot of racism and the white men in the neighborhood had attempted to take his life. 

In the 1930s in the south of the US, racial segregation was at its peak. The presumption of innocence was therefore irrelevant when it came to a black man. a white woman would always be believed, no matter what class she came from, over a black man. In this case, it shows that there was a clear lack of evidence that connected Tom to the incident and there were no medical records that proved that indeed the rape took place. 

Naturalist theory

The theory states that the law must be integrated with social norms and values. It conjoins the law and morality and states that one can not exist without the other. Natural law focuses on unchangeable universe moral values that lead to one distinguishing between what’s right and wrong. 

Moral knowledge is usually depicted in a naturalist perspective. It talks of what a person should be in terms of their character and what choices one needs to make in order to cultivate those character traits. It is also held that there is no one specific manner a person ought to live and can be drawn from either religious views or rational thinking. 

There are two approaches to the natural law: namely the universal moral approach and the contemporary approach. The universal approach looks at fairness, justice and human dignity. 

According to Lon Fuller, one needs to look at the purpose of the statute in order to get a conception of what ought to be the case and come to a sensible decision. Fuller reiterates that one cannot interpret the law without having a moral view on what the law should be. This is further seen in the Hart – Fuller debate when Fuller argues that an unjust law cannot be said to be law that will include inner morality. He further states that there is a need to base natural law on positive law. Furthermore, mention must be made of Thomas Aquinas who stated that a system of law is divided into different sections. One of these sections is that of natural law and secondary natural law. He further states that primary natural law is that which is instilled in our minds by God and is unchangeable. Secondary natural law is then explained as that part of law that is not absolutely certified – most of these rules change according to the norms of society and do not stay certain, they are only applied in particular circumstances. 

Applying these theories to the Robertson case

To kill a Mockingbird reveals the essence of human behavior, both noble and bad. Atticus Funch (Tom Robertson’s lawyer) represents the noble in the moral values he displays during the ongoing trial. This is because he uses his moral values to protect Tom while still respecting the rules of law. Atticus goes against the racially flawed social norms of the time by using his values and honor while the white majority society, led by Bob Ewell represents the bad. He is the epitome of both the contemporary and universal law approach in that he uses reasoning and his intellect to determine what is fair and just in the case. 

In this case, the social norms at the time were that of racial segregation and discrimination. A black man was seen as being continuously inferior to the white man and therefore was always seen as a criminal and animal. This is portrayed when the mob of white men, led by Mr Cunningham and Mr Ewell go to the house of Tom Robertson to hurt him. It is also portrayed in the acts the sheriff, judge and jury in finding Tom guilty with no evidence that he did anything to Mayella. They already a preconceived idea that Tom was guilty even before the trial started because he was black. 

However, Atticus is the voice of justice and fairness in the trial. He protects Tom even when the mob goes to his house because he is the voice of reason and his moral values do not allow him to let an innocent man die for something he has not done. Atticus continues to be the voice of reason during the trial when he applies both the law as well as moral values to the trial. It is proven that Tom has no use of his left hand whereas that is the hand that was used to strike Mayella. He also states that there is no medical evidence to support the claims of sexual abuse and according to the law there is no basis for the alleged crime that Tom is accused of. Atticus also reaches out to the jury to apply the values of Justice and fairness in the verdict and findings. Social norms are said to be changeable to that particular circumstances and this is seen by the sheriff overlooking the crime committed by Boo Radley when he killed the man who tried to hurt Jem and Scout. The sheriff chooses to say that the perpetrator fell and landed on a knife because his moral values at the time of protect boo Radley. 

It is clear that according to naturalism, Tom would have had a fair trial. This is due to the fact that the laws States clearly that in order for one to be guilty of a crime there should be undeniable evidence that points to him. Moral values also state that it unjust law is no law at all, as stated by Fuller, and that morality is changeable according to the particular circumstances of a case is held by Aquinas. Had the jury applied naturalism, Tom would have been acquitted of his crime. 

Conclusion

The above shows that naturalism focuses more on the law being integrated with morality than on social norms. This is because some social norms are unjust and it is held that an unjust law is no law at all and that reason looks at fairness, Justice, reasoning and rationality. The law is not overlooked, it is just seen to be unjust and not a law when it goes against the human dignity of another individual or group of individuals. It is clear that Tom Robinson’s trial was unjust and had the theory of naturalism (that Atticus stood for) been used, he would have received a fair trial that was still in the constraints of the law. 

References

• Bilchitz D, Meltz T & Oyowe O jurisprudence in an African context (Oxford University Press Cape Town ) 2017. 
• Lee H To Kill a Mockingbird (New York: Harper Perennial Modern Classics) 2006. 
• Copp “Why Naturalism?” 2002 ethical Theory and moral practice 73-77. 
• Donoso “jurisprudence today naturalism vs positivism” 1963 University of Detroit law journal 59. 
• Haines “What To Do When Faced With An Unjust Law” 2004 Australian journal of legal philosophy 91. 
• Markey “ Natural law, positive law and conflicting norms in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird” 3 – 4
• Perry “Moral knowledge, Moral Reasoning, Moral Relativism ; A Naturalist approach” 1986 Heinonline 1001.