Critique of Abel on Popular Justice and the Alexandra Treason Trial

Abstract

Popular justice as a field of study is marked by profound conceptual confusion and is regarded by many as an imbroglio of misunderstanding. In this critique I present reasons for believing that this problem has its roots in Richard L. Abel's influential theory of `informal justice'. I show that this term as used by Abel is a logically confused malapropism for popular justice which is based on a fundamental category mistake that vitiates his definitional apparatus (his `general theory') of popular justice from top to bottom. This critique shows that his self-styled `contradictions of informal justice' are artefacts of his own general theory of popular justice and are not based on anything inherently contradictory in the nature of popular justice itself. An additional criticism is that Abel's general theory is a one-sided `lawyer's theory' of justice which excludes by definitional fiat the most basic kind of popular justice of all. This critique concludes by showing how these defects along with other factors have caused Abel to fundamentally misconstrue the Alexandra Treason Trial and to obscure the roles played by popular justice and sociology in this important South African jurisprudential event.

Keywords

Alexandra Treason Trial extra-state law informal justice popular justice revolutionary justice self-help justice

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abel, R.L. (1973) `A Comparative Theory of Dispute Institutions in Society', Law & Society Review 7: 217-347.

Abel, R.L. (1982a) `Introduction', in R. L. Abel (ed.) The Politics of Informal Justice: Volume 1, The American Experience, pp. 1-16. New York: Academic Press.

Abel, R.L. (1982b) `The Contradictions of Informal Justice', in R. L. Abel (ed.) The Politics of Informal Justice: Volume 1, The American Experience, pp. 267-321. New York: Academic Press.

Abel, R.L. (1982c) `Introduction', in R. L. Abel (ed.) The Politics of Informal Justice: Volume 2, Comparative Studies, pp. 1-13. New York: Academic Press.

Abel, R.L. (1995) Politics by Other Means: Law in the Struggle Against Apartheid, 1980-1994. London: Routledge .

Allott, A. N. and G. R. Woodhouse (eds) (1985) People's Law and State Law: The Bellagio Papers. Berlin: Foris Publications.

Bila, J.J. , V. Maleka , P. Molotedi and I. Mukhari (1989) `A Rare Example of Sociological Jurisprudence and Judicial Realism: The State v. Moses Mayekiso et al.', South African Law Journal 106: 595-600.

Ehrlich, E. (1936) Principles of the Sociology of Law (translated by E. Moll). Cambridge. MA: Harvard University Press. Originally published 1913.

Fuller, L.L. (1969) `Human Interaction and the Law', American Journal of Jurisprudence 14: 71-86.

10.

Hart, H.L.A. (1961) The Concept of Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

11.

Lederach, J.P. and R. Kraybill (1993) `The Paradoxes of Popular Justice: A Practitioner's View', in S. E. Merry and N. Milnar (eds) The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States, pp. 357-400. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

12.

Merry, S.E. (1993) `Sorting Out Popular Justice', in S. E. Merry and N. Milnar (eds) The Possibility of Popular Justice: A Case Study of Community Mediation in the United States, pp. 31-66. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

13.

Pound, R. (1911) `The Scope and Purpose of Sociological Jurisprudence 1', Harvard Law Review 24: 591-619.

14.

Ryle, G. (1959) `Categories'. In A. G. N. Flew (ed.) Logic and Language, 2nd series. Oxford: Blackwell.

15.

Strawson, P.F. (1952) An Introduction to Logical Theory. London: Methuen.