Law is a tool by which society governs itself through a system we call justice. At its best, it exists to measure right from wrong, to weigh conduct against consequence, to arbitrate disputes without violence. At its origin, law was never meant to be ornamental or static. It was meant to respond, not to harm, to change, to the shifting realities of human life.
And yet, much of modern law is built in stagnation.
It functions like still water: calm on the surface, reflective, apparently clear. When undisturbed, it offers the illusion of precision and objectivity. You can look into it and believe you see the truth. But the moment that water is disturbed, by culture, by difference, by poverty, by race, by trauma, by movement, the image clouds. It darkens. Sediment rises. What once appeared pristine becomes unreadable. The system waits, patiently, for the water to settle again, not by correcting itself, but by suppressing motion.
This is the paradox at the heart of law: justice claims neutrality, but it is calibrated for stillness. It rewards those who can remain unmoving, unreactive, and legible within its narrow frame. It punishes those whose lives require motion.
Law, as we practice it today, struggles to evolve because it judges human beings as if they were fixed objects rather than dynamic systems. It assesses conduct without context, behavior without history, reaction without pressure. It treats uniqueness as deviation and culture as noise. Individual thinking, the very force that animates human survival, is often misread as defiance, instability, or risk.
A rigid system, by design, cannot recognize fluidity. And a system that cannot recognize fluidity cannot judge fairly.
This produces an impasse. In theory, facts should determine outcomes. In practice, performance often matters more. Those who “win” are not always those most aligned with truth, but those who best understand how to appear still, credible, and compliant within institutional expectations. Vindication becomes less a function of justice and more a matter of timing, optics, and luck.
When something fluid collides with something solid, physics tells us what happens. Water does not break the wall by pushing gently against it. It disperses. It absorbs the impact. It conforms. The wall remains. The system remains. The individual collapses into resistance.
Unless the water becomes forceful. i.e.,
Martin Luther King — the Civil Rights Movement,
Brown V. Board of Education — Segregation,
Labor Movement — Unsafe Working Conditions and Lack of Labor Rights,
Apartheid System — The Anti-Apartheid Movement
Men as Equal and Capable Parents — To Be determined
And the list goes on…..
Law does not evolve through polite pressure. It evolves through disruption, through moments when movement becomes impossible to ignore. When challenge arrives with enough force that the structure must either bend or break. Legal progress has never come from stillness. It has come from waves: from collective insistence, from social upheaval, from moments that leave evidence behind, proof that something passed through and changed the landscape (like the examples above).
Yet society routinely forgets the preciousness of what law is meant to protect: humanity itself.
Consider how predetermined outcomes operate beneath the language of neutrality. When a mother removes children and frames the act through the vocabulary a stagnant system already understands, the law often responds with sympathy and protection. The act is contextualized, justified, and legalized. Credibility precedes verification. Truth is assumed because the narrative aligns with expectation.
Reverse the roles, and the same conduct is often labeled immediately as criminal. Language shifts. Intent is presumed malicious. Context is stripped away. The act becomes “kidnapping” rather than “protection.”
The difference is not rooted in facts alone. It is rooted in how stagnation trains institutions to recognize some forms of movement as legitimate and others as dangerous.
The same logic appears elsewhere. A person of color walking alone in an affluent neighborhood is often treated as suspicious, not because of behavior, but because presence itself disrupts the still image of who belongs. Guilt precedes evidence. Judgment arrives before facts. The individual is rendered out of place, not by law written on paper, but by law embedded in perception.
This is what it means to be guilty before the facts — My upcoming Book
And so, we arrive at the uncomfortable truth: social justice, criminal justice, moral justice, and even collective conscience lose their way when law becomes a mechanism of catch-up rather than evolution. When it reacts only after damage is done, and even then, selectively. When practitioners, judges, lawyers, officers of the court, social workers, and institutional professionals see the fractures clearly but feel constrained to reaffirm the status quo rather than name what stands before them.
Many within these systems recognize the dissonance. They see where outcomes diverge from the truth. They sense where process overrides fairness. But systems built on stagnation reward silence. Speaking disrupts the water. Silence preserves appearance.
Law will not evolve by insisting on stillness. It will evolve only when it learns to read motion, not as threat, but as information. When it understands that fluidity is not disorder, but adaptation. That culture is not bias, but context. That individuality is not instability, but evidence of life.
Until then, justice will remain a mirror that only works when the water is calm, reflecting not reality, but a narrow image of who is allowed to stand still long enough to be believed.
If you like what you have just read,
Get a copy of my brief novel:
