Justice, Mercy, and the Spirit of Law: Reconsidering Punishment, Accountability, Protection, and Human Dignity
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.47353/lawpass.v3i3.120Keywords:
Justice, Mercy, Spirit of Law, Rule of Law, Human Dignity, proportionality, restorative justice, due process, legal inequality, Islamic ethicsAbstract
This article examines the moral purpose of law through the relationship between justice, mercy, accountability, human dignity, and the spirit of law. It addresses whether law should primarily function as an instrument of punishment, deterrence, correction, guidance, protection, institutional restraint, or revenge. Using an interdisciplinary comparative and reflective approach, the study examines Islamic ethical teachings, ancient legal traditions, constitutional principles, human-rights standards, judicial decisions, restorative justice, executive clemency, procedural safeguards, and contemporary challenges to access to justice. The analysis demonstrates that the legitimacy of law depends not only on the existence of formal rules but also on how those rules are interpreted and applied within particular human circumstances. Mercy does not eliminate accountability, while justice should not be reduced to punishment. A humane legal system must distinguish deliberate wrongdoing from error, coercion, vulnerability, ignorance, and genuine repentance. The article proposes a five-lens model consisting of text, purpose, intention, harm, and proportionality and reform. The model provides an analytical framework for maintaining legal certainty while preventing justice from becoming mechanical cruelty or revenge. Ultimately, the spirit of law represents the moral commitment to protect human dignity, restrain power, repair harm, and preserve the possibility of responsible human reform.
References
Amin, M., Murdiono, M., & Sarimov, R. (2023). Evolution of the Islamic judicial system: Justice in the governance of Caliph ‘Umar Ibn Al-Khaṭṭāb. Al-Ahkam: Jurnal Ilmu Syari’ah dan Hukum, 8(2), 133–145. https://doi.org/10.22515/alahkam.v8i2.8061
Aristotle. (1999). Nicomachean ethics (M. Oswald, Trans.). Book V. Prentice Hall.
Ashworth, A., & Zedner, L. (2014). Preventive justice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 34(3), 485–509. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqu002
Assumpção, A. D. G. (2010). The punishment humanity and the human dignity from a perspective of prisoner’s escape. Revista do Direito Público, 5(1), 63–79. https://doi.org/10.5433/1980-511X.2010v5n1p63
Barak, A. (2012). Proportionality: Constitutional rights and their limitations. Cambridge University Press.
Barkow, R. E., & Osler, M. (2024). Clemency. Annual Review of Criminology, 7, 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-022222-040514
Berman, H. J. (1983). Law and revolution: The formation of the Western legal tradition. Harvard University Press.
Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Daly, K. (2016). What is restorative justice? Fresh answers to a vexed question. Victims & Offenders, 11(1), 9–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1107797
Dehaghani, R., & Newman, D. (2021). Criminal legal aid and access to justice: An empirical account of a reduction in resilience. International Journal of the Legal Profession, 29(1), 33–52. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2020.1868474
Deigh, J. (2014). Punishment and proportionality. Criminal Justice Ethics, 33(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1080/0731129X.2014.988429
Dworkin, R. (1986). Law’s empire. Harvard University Press.
European Convention on Human Rights. (1950). Article 6.
Fuller, L. L. (1969). The morality of law (Rev. ed.). Yale University Press.
Galanter, M. (1974). Why the ‘haves’ come out ahead: Speculations on the limits of legal change. Law & Society Review, 9(1), 95–160.
Hansen, T., & Umbreit, M. (2018). State of knowledge: Four decades of victim-offender mediation research and practice: The evidence. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 36(2), 99–113. https://doi.org/10.1002/crq.21234
Hart, H. L. A. (1994). The concept of law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press.
Hildebrandt, M. (2018). Algorithmic regulation and the rule of law. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences, 376(2128), 20170355. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2017.0355
Huang, K.-C., Lin, C.-C., & Chen, K.-P. (2024). Do rich and poor behave similarly in seeking legal advice? Lessons from Taiwan in comparative perspective. Law & Society Review. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12055
Ibrahim, Z. S., Karimullah, S. S., Assaad, A. I., Septiani, R., & Okur, H. (2025). Integration of Maqaṣid al-Shari’ah in the criminal law reform to achieve justice and human dignity. Jurnal Hukum Islam, 23(1), 105–144. https://doi.org/10.28918/jhi.v23i1.04
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. (1966). Article 14.
Khabirpour, N. (2025). A tale of two cases and a story yet untold: Access to justice and legal advice under the civil limb of Article 6 ECHR. The Modern Law Review, 88(3), 527–556. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12937
Krygier, M. (2016). The rule of law: Pasts, presents, and two possible futures. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 12, 199–229. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134103
Lacey, N. (2016). The metaphor of proportionality. Journal of Law and Society, 43(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2016.00739.x
Latimer, J., Dowden, C., & Muise, D. (2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969
Leenes, R., Palmerini, E., Koops, B.-J., Bertolini, A., Salvini, P., & Lucivero, F. (2017). Regulatory challenges of robotics: Some guidelines for addressing legal and ethical issues. Law, Innovation and Technology, 9(1), 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/17579961.2017.1304921
Legal Services Corporation. (2022). The justice gap: The unmet civil legal needs of low-income Americans.
Lloyd, A., & Borrill, J. (2020). Examining the effectiveness of restorative justice in reducing victims’ post-traumatic stress. Psychological Injury and Law, 13, 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12207-019-09363-9
Magnus, A. M., & Donohue, F. A. (2022). Reimagining access to justice through the eyes of rural domestic violence survivors. Theoretical Criminology, 26(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/13624806211035103
Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961).
Meyerson, D. (2018). Procedural justice and the law. Philosophy Compass, 13(8), e12548. https://doi.org/10.1111/phc3.12548
Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).
Nagelsen, S., & Huckelbury, C. (2016). The death penalty and human dignity: An existential fallacy. Laws, 5(2), 25. https://doi.org/10.3390/laws5020025
Newman, D. (2025). Access to justice policy: Legal aid in post-war UK general election manifestos. Journal of Law and Society. https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2024.2446418
Ono, Y., & Zilis, M. A. (2022). Ascriptive characteristics and perceptions of impropriety in the rule of law: Race, gender, and public assessments of whether judges can be impartial. American Journal of Political Science. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12599
Radbruch, G. (2006). Statutory lawlessness and supra-statutory law. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 26(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqi041
Rich, S. (2026). Cardinal proportionality and justifications of harm in punishment theory. Legal Theory, 32, 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/09615768.2026.2640631
Riley, S. (2015). Human dignity and the rule of law. Utrecht Law Review, 11(2), 91–105. https://doi.org/10.18352/ulr.320
Rodrigues, R. (2020). Legal and human rights issues of AI: Gaps, challenges and vulnerabilities. Journal of Responsible Technology, 4, 100005. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrt.2020.100005
Setyaudin, T., Tan, E., & Teo, R. (2026). The Quranic conception of justice and its application in Islamic legal thought. Journal of Noesantara Islamic Studies, 3(2), 136–149. https://doi.org/10.70177/jnis.v3i2.3568
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
Snacken, S. (2021). Human dignity and prisoners’ rights in Europe. Crime and Justice, 50, 193–236. https://doi.org/10.1086/715910
Suhariyanto, B., & Mustafa, C. (2022). Analysis and evaluation of legal aid in the Indonesian court. Jurnal Hukum dan Peradilan, 11(2), 176–194. https://doi.org/10.25216/jhp.11.2.2022.176-194
Suzuki, M., & Jenkins, T. (2024). Redefining forgiveness in restorative justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 27(3), 273–289. https://doi.org/10.1080/1478601X.2024.2349586
Tonry, M. (2018). Punishment and human dignity: Sentencing principles for twenty-first-century America. Crime and Justice, 47, 119–157. https://doi.org/10.1086/696948
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1086/652233
United Nations General Assembly. (2015). United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners (the Nelson Mandela Rules) (Resolution 70/175).
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. (2020). Handbook on restorative justice programmes (2nd ed.).
United Nations. (1948). Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
United Nations. (1990). Basic Principles on the Role of Lawyers.
van der Aa, S. (2026). The conceptualisation of ‘procedural justice’ for victims and defendants: Different strokes for similar folks? International Review of Victimology. https://doi.org/10.1177/02697580261434034
van Hall, M., Dirkzwager, A. J. E., van der Laan, P. H., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2023). Procedural justice, perceived legitimacy, and reoffending behavior: In police and court settings. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 50(12), 1874–1892. https://doi.org/10.1177/00938548231206833
von Hirsch, A. (1992). Proportionality in the philosophy of punishment. Crime and Justice, 16, 55–98. https://doi.org/10.1086/449204
Wachter, S., Mittelstadt, B., & Floridi, L. (2017). Why a right to explanation of automated decision-making does not exist in the General Data Protection Regulation. International Data Privacy Law, 7(2), 76–99. https://doi.org/10.1093/idpl/ipx005
Weitekamp, E. G. M., & Parmentier, S. (2016). Restorative justice as healing justice: Looking back to the future of the concept. Restorative Justice, 4(2), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/20504721.2016.1197517
Wood, W. R., & Suzuki, M. (2024). Getting to accountability in restorative justice. Victims & Offenders, 19(7), 1400–1423. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2024.2333304
Zinsstag, E., & Chapman, T. (2022). Conferencing in restorative justice: International variation and best practice. Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 42(3), 789–815. https://doi.org/10.1093/ojls/gqac014
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
Categories
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Ossama S. Qatrani
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
You are free to:
- Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format for any purpose, even commercially.
- Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
- Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
- No additional restrictions — You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others.
Notices:
You do not have to comply with the license for elements in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not grant all permissions required for your intended use. Other rights such as publicity, privacy, or moral rights may apply.
