Brown V. Board Of Education Case Study

Legal normativity constitutes an idea that one must abide by the laws of an established legal system. Logically, it follows that sanctions are a necessary product of legal obligation as it confers both upon the legal obligation a sense of authority and upon the individual an incentive to submit oneself to the rule of law. When viewed from the perspective of natural law theorists, such as John M. Finnis, legal obligation is predominantly an ineffective form of moral normativity as it disrupts social harmony.

Through this formal system of behavior control, not only are law-abiding citizens separated from violators, there is also an implicit division between the lawmakers from the general public, and the ignorant from the expert. Naturally, a

Board of Education (BOE) case. Historically, during the Jim Crow era, there was widespread segregation of public facilities between Blacks and Caucasians. One particular segregated facility was the public school. It was the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. BOE to require all public schools to desegregate. However, after the initial holding, schools continued to be segregated, and it was only through a second holding and military coercion, that the judgment was finally implemented. Further, a major reason why Brown v. BOE had resulted in desegregation was due to the Compulsory School Act. Unlike previously, when education was not mandated as it did not play a large role in one’s occupational opportunities, the emerging social context required public schools to provide their pupils with equal learning opportunities. This would be a great example of the legal system acting in the good of society, yet the decision was held approximately a century after the Compulsory School

One may believe that littering is effectively resolved through formal laws such that violations will result in penalties (usually a fine) and this will encourage people to conform to the law. In theory, this sounds respectable, however, when such laws are actually implemented, it may cause more harm than good. Poor neighborhoods, whose dwellers do not have the time or the resources to adequately deal with littering, may be targeted more stringently by the city’s laws. This disparity would exacerbate as exhibited by the broken windows theory, which explains that a dirty neighborhood will encourage further littering as dwellers feel they are justified in their behavior, and do not feel obligated to act otherwise. Unlike the rule of law, social norms would act as social pressure from the majority of the community upon individuals to maintain a clean neighborhood not just for the sake of following the law, but for the desire to live in a decent