Paradox of a corrupt court

Question

With current events in mind (South Africa v. Israel Genocide Convention), I have a question. How does Torah help us solve the paradox of applying justice to an injust justice system?

If the court comes to an erroneous and therefore unjust judgement, how are we supposed to approach that? To flagrantly ignore it can harm justice, because it will encourage disrespect of justice systems. To abide by it would be to encourage the corruption of the court, as well as commit a direct injustice.

So what are we supposed to do? Seems like a lose-lose situation, and a bit of a paradox. If justice doesn't come from courts, and only courts have the power to pronounce judgements, then how can this problem be fixed? How can we even figure out what is true justice without a court?

I imagine the answer is different for Jewish court systems, vs. Jews having to abide by non Jewish court systems. It probably gets even more complicated when the Jews in question are secular. Due to current events I am interested in the latter, but to be honest, the entire subject of dealing with unjust courts is of interest so I would welcome answers that deal with whatever slice of this topic they want.

Answer 1

I am not getting into commentary on any current government or its decisions.

As stated before, a government can be legitimate, but still acting in a way that is deeply flawed; dina demalchusa dina still applies. (Or turn it around -- it can be doing things that are deeply flawed, yet still be a legitimate government.) That was Rabbi Moshe Feinstein's view, publicly and privately, vis-a-vis the USSR during his time there.

From Page 22 of the family's biography prefacing Igros Moshe Volume 8:

Once the Communist regime came to power through a revolution and forced its control, many did not see it as a lawful government, rather just ruffians. Not so "our teacher" [R. Feinstein]. He related -- both privately and publicly -- to this regime as a government in every way; in every way its laws were the law, its coinage currency, but it was a government that did evil by persecuting those who kept Torah and mitzvos.... The local commissar spoke at length with our teacher to see if he opposed the government. Our teacher said that he feared for death, but G-d showed him the light to answer wisely. When asked on his opinion about the economic situation, he said that halacha recognizes only the Russian ruble as legal currency there; it was prohibited to defraud the state or circumvent its laws, and no foreign currency had any standing there -- this at the time when the ruble was nearly worthless. These answers pleased the regime, and this was how our teacher actually acted.

As R' Asher Weiss has suggested, the obligation to obey legitimate governments (in broad strokes) is one of a broader pikuach nefesh. Flawed government still keeps a lot more people alive than anarchy.

Answer 2

That’s why there are various levels of courts, both in Jewish law and in the civil justice system (of the USA and UK).

The function of a court is to enforce justice when A) someone deliberately perverts it, or B) to resolve doubt regarding correct execution of justice.

In the latter situation, all opinions regarding what the just approach are equally legal valid, until the court selects one. Then, the proponents of all other opinions must obey the court. If they don’t, then it’s as if the court doesn’t exist at all, and anarchy ensues.

If, however, the court itself is corrupt, then the court itself must have a court above it to decide whether the court’s ruling should be accepted or not.

There is still the problem of what happens when the highest court becomes corrupt.
When we had the Sanhedrin, that wasn’t an issue: seventy-one of the wisest and most moral people in all of the Nation of Israel carefully deliberating justice? The first hint of corruption in one person would immediately be detected by at least some of the others, and then be corrected, or the person it affected would be immediately removed from his position.
The Supreme Court (USA & UK) is a bit different. Politics are a major influence in its decisions. It’s not a bad system, but the Supreme Court is basically a normal court with extremely politically-careful decisions only as a consequence of its influential position, rather than anything intrinsically special.