Contradictory Laws and Judicial Responses to Legal Conflicts

Examples of Contradictory Laws

Laws may contradict each other by reflecting conflicting views and values within the legal system. For instance, while some laws may promote equality, others advance discrimination. While some states have laws that forbid companies from turning away customers based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, others do not. For example, California protects the LGBTQ+ community against discrimination, unlike Mississippi, which allows businesses and government officials to deny services to LGBTQ+ individuals based on religious objections (Berman 1). Another example is that, despite having the legal right to vote and engage in political activity, women may endure discrimination at work or economic disparity.

Resolving Legal Contradictions

Conflicting laws lead to doubt and confusion in the legal system. They suggest that there could be inconsistency or incoherence in the legal system, which could reduce public trust and confidence. Courts are frequently relied upon in such situations to settle conflicts and give guidance. As part of this complicated procedure, it may be necessary to interpret the lawmakers’ intentions or look at the background and context of the relevant legislation. Conflicting laws within the legal system indicate that its principles and objectives are only sometimes consistent.

Evaluating the Severity of Legal Contradictions and the Hierarchy of Principles

Some contradictions may be more significant than others, depending on the context and the fundamental principles they contradict. Contradictions that challenge morally important fundamental principles are often worse than those that do not. Furthermore, depending on the local setting and a particular society’s cultural, social, and political norms, some basic principles are more significant than others. For instance, in the US, individual liberty may be more highly regarded than communal harmony and, therefore, more critical to uphold.

The Role of Judicial Precedent

Judges must consider the past and history when making decisions because they offer examples and precedents for interpreting and applying the law. However, when past decisions contradict each other, judges must examine the logic and guiding concepts behind each previous decision to determine which best conforms to the law and the fundamental values of the Constitution (Dworkin 131). Since the objective is to guarantee that the law is administered fairly and consistently while adjusting to changing circumstances and beliefs, they must conduct the review with care and rationale.

Works Cited

Berman, Mark. “Mississippi Governor Signs Law Allowing Businesses to Refuse Service to Gay People.” The Washington Post, Web.

Dworkin, Ronald. Law’s empire. Harvard University Press, 1986. Web.