Is there a difference between the law and sense of justice in New Orleans and in Natchez?

One antagonist in this novel is Lieutenant Colonel Forrest Knox who spent part of his career working in New Orleans. Is there a difference between the law and sense of justice in New Orleans and in Natchez?

Yes, but I don't think just in New Orleans and Natchez. I think it is a pervasive theme through out our country. The law does not always satisfy our ideas of justice.

Definitely! This takes place all over our country. I think a lot of people do not feel a sense of justice following many events.

I think one has to take into account the size of the two cities and what agencies are responsible for applying and interpreting the laws and meting out the justice. Perhaps justice might be more equitable in a larger entity than in "the good ole boy" network of a smaller city. Could some misdeeds performed by certain residents be overlooked more readily in a smaller community? Again, who's committing the crime and who's applying the justice?

I am not sure that I see a huge difference except due to the scale of the two cities.

Race relations in New Orleans have always been an unsettled problem. This part of the series is spot on.

Law and justice are really two very different things. Laws are sterile rules set by a society to keep order and protect citizens, and are subject to interpretation by enforcement and judicial branches of government. Justice, as I see this question framed in the context of this book, is as individual as each person and their own moral code. Aren't each of these characters chasing their own personal form of justice - one they have internally defined and worked to rally others behind? And whether you believe in their "justice" or not is determined by where your values stand. And yes, this is a mirror of our current national situation.

I think anywhere in the country (or for that matter internationally) there is always a discrepancy between the law and what we feel is justice. Just because it is the law does not necessarily mean that we think that justice has been served. Recent news events seem to support this - e.g. extremely light sentencing for sexual crimes due to adherence to the law versus justice served.

While not disagreeing with any of the previous posts my concern in this book is one that has appeared in others which is simply the justifying of one's own sense of what is right and wrong by moving away from the legal system to ensure that what they have perceived as justice is done. I am not sure I am expressing myself adequately here but I feel that one's own sense of justice is just a tasteful way of saying revenge.

I felt New Orleans was a lot more corrupt than Natchez.

The south is just different and the author does have a grasp of how justice varies from parish to parish or state to state.

I interpreted this question to ask whether is a difference between the law and a sense of justice and I think there is a huge difference. The law is a cold, hard standard that (ought to) applies to all people. But every person can hold a uniquely individual sense of what is just and what is not. Additionally that sense can be applied differently to different people given even slight variations in circumstances. Time, place, context, standing in the community, race, religion, gender, and so on can change whether someone senses that justice has been served or not when a law is broken.
Laws are stagnant. Justice ought to be blind but whether people sense that justice has been served or not is very liquid.