Simply labelling it as legal interpretation of the law does not excuse the violence that is used within the interpretation. The law’s interpretation should exist as an unbiased system, but because the it is so embedded in violence and bias the law appears to fail in living up to its own ideals. The violence the law implements is very rarely legitimate, certain circumstances such as a state of great harm may excuse the violence, but the violence of capital punishment and mass incarceration have proven to be less than justified. This is further emphasized with the idea of coercion because coercion and law are nearly indistinguishable because violence plays a key factor in both concepts. As a result, the law is cluttered with biased and arbitrary opinions becoming very difficult to uphold the ideals it has set in place. This ultimately shows that legal interpretation and violence are indistinguishable from one
Simply labelling it as legal interpretation of the law does not excuse the violence that is used within the interpretation. The law’s interpretation should exist as an unbiased system, but because the it is so embedded in violence and bias the law appears to fail in living up to its own ideals. The violence the law implements is very rarely legitimate, certain circumstances such as a state of great harm may excuse the violence, but the violence of capital punishment and mass incarceration have proven to be less than justified. This is further emphasized with the idea of coercion because coercion and law are nearly indistinguishable because violence plays a key factor in both concepts. As a result, the law is cluttered with biased and arbitrary opinions becoming very difficult to uphold the ideals it has set in place. This ultimately shows that legal interpretation and violence are indistinguishable from one