This contribution delves into the fusion of law and literature through the analysis of two distinct British works – Prima Facie and Peter Grimes. Despite their differing forms, a one-woman show and an opera, both pieces can be considered legal narratives and provide insight into the conflict between social and legal sanctions and (non)condemnation. Through a law and literature analysis of these works, the presentation explores how the law often inadequately addresses social issues, proving ineffective in responding to crimes and delivering appropriate condemnations. As Prima Facie aptly illustrates, contemporary discussions revolve around the sufficiency and challenges of legal regulation concerning issues like rape and violence. Challenges include also law application, evidentiary shortcomings, conflicting testimonies, insensitivity to victims, and societal distrust. As a result, perpetrators often leave the courtroom acquitted, prompting critical reactions from the public. In contrast, Peter Grimes leaves us with a sense of what it feels like to be condemned by public opinion instead of a lawful judge. What then happens when guilt cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt? Can judges and the legal system respond differently? What role does societal sanction play? This presentation addresses these questions, drawing on the narratives of Prima Facie and Peter Grimes and the reactions that may elicit from their audiences. By doing so, it contributes to the ongoing discourse on the adequacy and limitations of legal responses to social issues and the complex dynamics between law, literature, and social norms.