Just to say something different then the definition, I would describe it as both a representation of, and the justification for, the government's monopoly on violence.

This looks like an assignment for your homework.

The purpose of a legal system is to provide stability to a society, so that a person can safely pursue long term goals over their lifetime in a predictable environment.

The most effective way to accomplish this is to make a system where laws originate from a process where people are allowed to have some say in the creation of the laws that will apply to them, and the laws are then applied uniformly, consistently and fairly to all people regardless of background.

Our system partially fulfils this.

I have always had issues with any and all legal systems because they are rooted in human language and human language can be endlessly reinterpreted. In fact, that's pretty much the half the reason lawyers exist, to argue that a certain interpretation that benefits their client. As we've seen time and time again, the language of the oppressed gets co-opted and repackaged (recuperated) by the dominant and controlling parts of society. Those who already have control are unlikely to let that control of others go, and they will sink to any depth and any reinterpretation to justify it.

At least academics who focus on interpreting literature are honest about how they're pulling the interpretations out of their own ass.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

-Jean-Paul Sartre

Thus, as much as we need legal systems, I think they are always prone to failure and authoritarianism.

The purpose of a legal system is to provide consistent and coherent methods of conflict resolution that are superior for the functioning of general society than means outside of a system of centralized coercion for certain, sufficiently disruptive acts.

By this extremely broad definition, the legal system in my country, the USA, fulfills its purpose. But so would the legal system of fucking Napoleonic France.

More narrowly, a legal system should be oriented towards a standardized means of punishment and reform of those who disrupt the basic functioning of civil society.

By this narrower definition, my country only succeeds on 'standardized means of punishment', and even there arguably only partially. It largely fails at reform, and the punishments are both visited on those who do not disrupt the basic functioning of civil society (minor drug offenses, immigration crackdowns, anti-homeless legislation), and failed to be visited on many of those who do disrupt the basic functioning of civil society (gestures broadly at corporate America and the current coterie of fascists in power in government).

A legal system should be providing the framework to deal with disagreement and should be fair and equitable. Mine is being trampled all over atm so is not doing its purpose so well.

To make justice to the victims of crimes by punishing the perpetrators without accidentally punishing the innocent. Mine currently fails at both due to the long times it takes to judge people, meaning guilty people don’t get properly punished and the innocent get ounished with a long court battle that takes up much of their lives

Purpose is to keep everyone in check ti be nice humans.

Does the one here fullfill that? HELL NO

Good question.

I think I have to distinguish between my opinion on what a legal system should be vs what i think it is first.

Imo a legal system should just elaborate on justice, ie equalizing between opposing parties on the fixed principles of ist foundation. For example if you have the rule that nobody shall be harmed, that includes all harm and no matter for what reason, except necessary to keep harm from others etc.

What I think the legal system is in most countries (or rather has become, but i'll explain why that was the only choice anyway) is a way for the rich and powerful to excert power over the masses. You need to be insanely privileged to work in the legal system or to influence it, you need a lot of money to hire a lawyer, etc.

The country i live in is infamous for its complicated and blown up legal system. It is exactly what I explained before.

Why is it systemic? We have the issue that we live in an unfair system that thrives on inequality and left by itself it is cruel and heartless. A legal system needs to try its best to keep the cruel parts at bay which osnt possible long term. In socialist systems, despite their flaws, that is much easier because the system is based on similarity.

I think we need a better system (you can guess) and then the legal system will collapse to the most basic stuff like theft, fights and such. The whole "legally stealing from customers" shtick will be gone.

You probably would not appreciate me punching you in the face and taking your phone. If I'm stronger than you there is not much you can do. If you get the entire tribe involved then you can.

That being said every legal system is perfectly adapted to how society was in the recent past.

First there was moral reasoning and feelings, then there were religion, and now there is laws. I think it works quite well for countries with a healthy government.

The purpose of the legal system of the United States of America is to oppress the common people and enable the capitalist agendas of the highest bidders. It accomplishes these things perfectly.

The legal system has many jobs to fulfill, but in the broadest sense it serves to construct, maintain, and administrate the contract between a government and its citizens.

In spite of recent events, I do believe that the American legal system is one of the best that has ever existed. That isn’t to say it is perfect or even nearly so. Our system has many flaws, and recent events have done a great job at highlighting those flaws. However, it is worth remembering the severity of previous systems which lacked basic pillars we now take for granted (like the presumption of innocence)

It is also worth remembering that our legal system has a lot to contend with: not just the scale of the American population but the vastness of American diversity. Never before and nowhere else have such massively diverse populations been able to construct a society where we are all empowered to disagree with each other. The contract which makes this possible may still fail do provide these things equitably and may now be strained beneath its own weight, but the simple fact that we are able to discuss these flaws and conceive reasonable avenues for improvement is evidence that our system is (imperfectly) working.

The purpose of the legal system is to enforce the laws.

Does it fulfill it? No. Trump was convicted on 34 counts, has not been held accountable. If you have the money to delay judgement you can get away with anything.

On the other end of the spectrum, if you don't have money and can't afford legal representation, we are SUPPOSED to provide a public defender.

When there aren't enough public defenders to go around, those cases aren't even prosecuted.

https://www.opb.org/article/2024/05/31/appellate-court-affirms-ruling-releasing-defendants-from-jail-with-no-public-defender/

https://www.opb.org/article/2025/03/13/oregon-counsel-unrepresented-attorneys-crisis-misdemeanors-felony-cases/

https://www.mcda.us/index.php/news/da-mike-schmidt-calls-lack-of-public-defenders-an-urgent-threat-to-public-safety