What is Justice?

Some people see Justice as a lawful method for criminals to pay for their crimes or sins (within a religion), in different cultures Justice could be as harsh as cutting ones hand off for stealing from a store or serving a time sentence for it. But what is amazing is the evolution of what Justice was and as well the aspects or ideals of what Justice is.

What is it that you ideal Justice is for you to be? and why?

Wow, thats a complex issue. I think the system has evolved from some attempt at an 'eye for an eye' to realise that you can not actually rewrite history (right the wrong doings), but you can remove the options for an offender to reoffend. So I think ones 'freedom' is the privilege a secure society grants and removes as its measure of justice. Societies then create rules to limit the capacity of people to cause damage with that freedom. Those two concepts could be the framework people have instead of genuine justice, with justice instead referring to the functional capacity of that system to operate. That leaves punishment as the measure of ones restriction to freedom and thus also a measure of justice. Or did I just avoid the question?
:lol:

Galvanmj wrote: Some people see Justice as a lawful method for criminals to pay for their crimes or sins (within a religion), in different cultures Justice could be as harsh as cutting ones hand off for stealing from a store or serving a time sentence for it. But what is amazing is the evolution of what Justice was and as well the aspects or ideals of what Justice is.

What is it that you ideal Justice is for you to be? and why?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY

Though this is a rather lengthy piece, it is worth a watch and presents my views on justice quite well. For those of you who know the trolley problem, I am leaning more so on the side of pulling the leaver to save the five people and instead only have one person die as in my eyes, justice in this case is serving the greater good and preserving the well-beings of many despite someone always having to serve some sort of punishment in the end. Of course, I would still get into a great deal of trouble for pulling the leaver and killing one person while saving five, yet allowing fate to take its course and watching as five are brutally killed due to my inaction goes against my principles. Fate has a hand in everything, and we also play a hand in the game against fate. Why not save the lives of many? Perhaps my idealistic sense of justice is naive? There is no real black and white in justice or in life...and contradiction is everywhere. I have faith in the law and legal process, and I hope that the system will work as it is supposed to. However, there are faults in every system, and nothing is perfect. Justice is protection of the innocent and atonement for the guilty (not necessarily punishment, instead learning as is the case with a certain boy "borrowing" seven dollars from his sister ), and even then, it is difficult to determine which side of the coin opposing parties stand on. Innocence until proven guilt is probably the most reasonable way to serve justice, and morals, evidence and fate all affect the outcome of any legal proceeding. Justice is as intangible as absolute truth is. We find examples of it that are vague and often questionable in the system, and it is otherwise impossible to define. A good follow-up question is, who serves justice and decides the fates of the supposed guilty and free parties, and why do they get to make the choice? Isn't leaving the final decision to just one person after arguing on the part of lawyers and after "evidence" is presented unjust?

Always, all things are a matter of perspective.

Enjoy the video I have attached for your viewing pleasure, and enjoy the lengthy drawl I've left as my response.

Justice as a general idea is relatively simple to grasp: Protect the free, punish the trespasser.

Does justice always work in such a cookie-cutter way?

No way in HELL

Does the complex set of morality within our society bend towards justice as a certain famous someone once said? Who can truly know?

Of course, my opinion does not give the topic absolute Justice in any way, so please, my friends, delve further!

Cheers!

~Lorian~

Justice is reacting to things in a way that does the most good for the most people. If the removal of an individual from the general population (through imprisonment or what have you) will benefit said population that is a just action IMHO.

Lykeios wrote: Justice is reacting to things in a way that does the most good for the most people. If the removal of an individual from the general population (through imprisonment or what have you) will benefit said population that is a just action IMHO.

IMHO= In my humble opinion? :huh:

Lorian wrote:

Lykeios wrote: Justice is reacting to things in a way that does the most good for the most people. If the removal of an individual from the general population (through imprisonment or what have you) will benefit said population that is a just action IMHO.

IMHO= In my humble opinion? :huh:

Humble/honest yes, either one works.

I feel that the greatest justice is when someone is forgiven and taken aback. I think forgiveness and mercy can change a man just as much as physical punishment or imprisonment. Only when someone repeats their infraction do I believe they deserve any other form of reformation.

I have one word that I use to define justice... Karma.

jus·tice
noun \ˈjəs-təs\

: the process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals

By that definition there is no such thing as an ideal justice. There is only justice and non-justice and since both reason and extent of punishment are part of the definition, everything that is short of being a punishment for crime and punishment for crime only and everything that is short of being 'fair' is not justice in this sense. Now some of you might think about what is fair and granted, there are some fuzzy ideas about it but from the same dictionary one definition that seems appropriate is:

fair
adjective \ˈfer\

: treating people in a way that does not favor some over others

Even this still remains a matter of opinion, where the line is between being still fair and no longer sufficiently fair. To counter this, I would say that when a society or in our case its leadership is designing laws that are supposed to be fair, one thing that must necessarily be on their mind is, that they themselves must not have a clear idea of what part in that society they would be playing. For if you don't know wether you might be in the group that has the disadvantage, you will not be designing the rules for there to be such a group or at least for the disadvantages to be so grave that you yourself wouldn't wish to live with them.

Source used: Merriam Webster Dictionary at www.merriam-webster.com

I think the answer to this question can best be found in the lyrics of a song called I Executioner by Method of Destruction:

There's no justice, there's just me!