How can the American legal system justify itself morally if it jeopardizes the right of law-abiding citizens to personal peace and security?
I realize that this question has been posed several times, but I wanted to suggest another answer to it. The same analysis applies in that some level of specificity is needed in addressing it. Yet, I also think that the notion of moral justification is something that needs to be addressed. Political systems need to have a moral basis for justification and validation. They do not necessarily need something that is grounded in morality. Political orders and governments do plenty of things that are politically sound, but not morally sound. For example, waging wars, supporting governments that engage in violations of human rights, or even failing to speak out against injustice are all examples of governments pursuing political ends and not moral ones. The fulfillment of the death penalty could also be another example of a government or legal body pursuing an end that is not moral. I think that the American legal system and its government might not need moral justification, as much as a political, historical, or social foundation. Perhaps, then, it might not need a moral justification, as the question presumes.