Changing view

I definitely agree with the statement that morals are not universal. Like most ideas, concepts, beliefs, etc., morals are socially constructed and relative to the context in which they are created. At first glance, it would be easy to dismiss morals or any non-concrete concepts as basis for law. Surely, law should be something concrete and unbiased--but can such a thing exist? It seems to me that law, like the majority of concepts and ideas, is a socially constructed institution. Law has existed throughout society but is constantly changing with society.
During the modern era (modern philosophical era) the emphasis became the idea of the subject or empowered individual. The enlightenment brought about a change of view in relation to the individual--so naturally law changed to suit this trend. The 20th century in many ways (often to a fault) is stuck on the modern era's notion of the empowered individual and thus law has often be changed or constructed in light of protecting the individual, sometimes resulting in "gaps" or "loopholes" that hurt the larger society. Ernesto Miranda committed a violent crime, yet won his case because as an individual his rights were limited do to the fact that he claimed to not fully understand his rights which is guaranteed under the due process clause.
Most people in Miranda's situation would find the modern notion of the individual to be great as it would prevent them from serving time. However, his action hurt society. Morally his act was wrong, but he was able to get off due to a technicality. There was a time when being guilty meant being guilty. Now, to be guilty means that not only are you guilty, but the prosecution and police did not mess up in some way.
It's all relative. There was a time when Miranda would have been punished without a thought of his natural rights or due process of the law, but now, in our view of the empowered individual, law is often limited by human error.