What is the difference between law and justice?

if you have read to kill in mocking bird i wolud like your answer to be in that context.
Law and Justice are very different! There is law (the text book rules we the people (including the government) are supposed to follow. The problem is Governmental figures are above the law. If you are ever accused of something (many innocent people are too) and they believe you are guilty, justice will not prevail for you. For example, on a white collar crime case, you may even go to trial and be presumed innocent at the end, right after your arrest- they will shut down your business, freeze your assets, give you a ridiculously high bail- and you don't get the fee back that you pay the bail bondsman (can be 10% of your bail). Not to mention, put into a highly dangerous correctional facility (like Rikers Island) while your family scrambled to raise your bail money. That is not justice.
The law is (or rules are) what is intended to bring the victim/s the justice (the criminals punishment) they deserve when a crime is committed against them (or society).

I put important phrases in quotes since I thought you might be writing a paper and this may make it easier to be sure you get the phrases correct.

When we say 'justice' prevails, we mean that what is 'morally right' has been done.

Since 'moral rightness' may mean different things to different people, people can disagree over whether or not justice has 'been done' (or 'prevailed') even if they agree on the facts about what happened. In many cases there is a consensus, such as about murder and theft being immoral and thus 'requiring punishment in order for justice to be done.'

But what is just, what constitutes justice, can be a personal belief. Often we all have the same belief, e.g. murder is wrong, but SOMETIMES WE DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT IS JUST, i.e. we have different beliefs. On the other hand, WE CAN'T DISAGREE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS, although we may disagree about how it should be interpreted and enforced. The law is what is written in the law books of a particular place or country. The law may not be right -- it may be totally unjust. But it's still the law. Of course, in most cases the people who write the law think that the law is just.

We say the 'law' has 'prevailed' ('been carried out') when the law has been enforced. In this case, also, people may disagree about what it means to ENFORCE the law in a particular case even if the facts of the case are agreed upon. BUT UNLIKE JUSTICE, NO ONE CAN ARGUE ABOUT WHAT THE LAW IS in a country like the United States where laws are 'clearly' defined.

Sometimes, the law (in a particular place and time) and justice intersect. For example, if a person in the United States kills another person just so they can rob their house, we would all (I think) consider justice and the law to have prevailed when the murderer is put in jail. There is a difference, though: someone might say that it wasn't just to put the murderer/robber in jail, for example, because he was mentally retarded. But no one could argue that the law said the minimum penalty was 20 years in jail, even if they thought that was not a just punishment.

However, imagine that in the 1930's in the southern US a black man and a white woman had consentual sex and the white woman was impregnated. If there was a law against such interracial sex and the black man was then put to death, we would say that 'the law had prevailed' but almost no one today would say that 'justice had prevailed'. In fact, I would emphatically say that 'justice did not prevail' even though the law of that time prevailed.

So, we can see that justice and the law do not mean the same thing always. In almost all cases, the makers of a law claim (and usually believe) that the law is just. However, often times the majority of humanity can see that a law is unjust -- for example locking people in cages for using some drugs (but not for alcohol) is unjust and so was locking people in chains and otherwise enslaving them because they were black.

So, laws are made by men and are often immoral. Usually, what is 'just' is understood to be 'God's law' or otherwise permanent and thus may differ from the laws of a particular place and time.

So, the racist laws of the south in the early 20th century were part of the 'law' but those laws were not 'just'. Despite the fact that the government institutions created to enforce 'law' are called 'the justice system' those institutions are not always 'just' in their actions, particularly when the laws themselves are not 'just'.

Also, we see that there is an assumption that laws are just (hence the term 'justice system' instead of 'law system' for the courts that are meant to enforce the law). Unfortunately, as we can all see by looking at today's drug laws and the laws of segregation, discrimination, and slavery in America's past, not all laws are just.

Sorry about repeating myself, just wanted to make sure I got everything out I wanted to say!
It has been too long since reading 'To Kill A Mockingbird' to comment on that case.

There are laws that foster injustice, some of which are overturned by the the Supreme Court of the US. Justice is based on truth, while the law is not.

In criminal court proceedings, the jury is supposed to decide guilt only if it is beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty of the charge against them. If the prosecution fails to provide enough evidence that meets that standard, the jury must render a verdict of 'Not Guilty'. If law enforcement uses illegally obtained evidence, or any part of a witness's testimony is found to be false, the evidence cannot be used in court, regardless of the guilt or innocence of the defendant. Juries have also convicted people wrongly,. based solely on their belief that the accused is guilty. Innocent defendants will plead guilty to a lesser crime in the belief they cannot win in court. In all such cases, justice is denied.

A recent example of the difference between the 2 is the case of a black man in Florida accused of rape, convicted solely by eyewitness testimony that later proved to be false. He served over 20 years before DNA evidence proved his innocence beyond ALL doubt. The law states that eyewitness testimony is valid proof of guilt (or innocence), which has been proven wrong many times. The law also states that a convicted person does not have the automatic right to demand such a test be performed that would conclusively clear him/her. While DNA testing to determine guilt or no guilt has been admissible in court since 1999, it took him about 9 years & a court order (which had been denied by the courts repeatedly) to receive that testing. He was denied justice at least twice, if not more.

You may notice there are many on here who would convict based solely on a person's race or ethnicity. I hope those who do that recognize racism & do some self examination.
[A] law is the written rules and regulations for citizens of the land for citizens to abide by. How it is carried out is subject to human understanding and interpretation; subject again to human bias and prejudices, and the judicial system is subject to the same parameters. Some laws are good and others are pure bunk, and of course, how one accepts a courts outcome depends if you won or lost your case.

And the application of law and justice to the story line of To Kill A Mockingbird? I don't want to be a blabber-mouth know-it-all. Good luck.