Justice

[Husar]

I know what you mean, Bijo, I don't have a girlfriend either.

[Incongruous]

Justice as is thought of in the legal profession can always be seen to be done. But then again, from what I have experienced thus far, lawyers are very conditioned in thier beliefs. Thus a lawyers perception of justice is usually not one shared by the general populace, this may be one of the reasons lawyers are surrounded by such stigma. This may then seem to negate any view of justice that the lawyers have, as it is in contrast or contradiction to that of the general non-legal populace.
However, if we were to rethink the idea of legal justice and model it upon the lines drawn out by popular perceptions of it, we could all wave goodbye to the fair trying of someone convicted of a hienous and well covered crime.
So I think justice is almost always done due to a relationship between public perception and legal perception, but when it goes wrong ios usually due to one or the other rejecting the other outright.

Just my thoughts.

[Bijo]

To me all that counts regarding being just is proper (independant) investigation, proper judgment, sound reasoning, logic / argumentation, facts, proper morality, and so on.

If we are speaking of the law this would have to be applied to it as well. Meaning: no need for lawyers nor juries, etc. (if there.) Investigate fairly and judge properly. Those who cannot judge properly, apply sound reasoning, be fair, or anything else required, should not be in the position to judge or to have any say at all in the outcome. Logic, clear minds, and the likes, including all that is just, should dictate justice, the law.

[Whacker]

I have no idea what's going on here, but I will post because of my sig. Thank you, we now return you to regular posting.

[Incongruous]

To me all that counts regarding being just is proper (independant) investigation, proper judgment, sound reasoning, logic / argumentation, facts, proper morality, and so on.

If we are speaking of the law this would have to be applied to it as well. Meaning: no need for lawyers nor juries, etc. (if there.) Investigate fairly and judge properly. Those who cannot judge properly, apply sound reasoning, be fair, or anything else required, should not be in the position to judge or to have any say at all in the outcome. Logic, clear minds, and the likes, including all that is just, should dictate justice, the law.

The problem with that is proper morality.
The justice system should strive to be amoral at all times.
Lawyers are at all times needed in order for all parties to speak with eloquence in regards to the law.

Jury's are also needed, especially in cases where the relevence of a certain sector of modern society is paramount to either the case as a whole, the defence or the prosecution. It adds empathy to Law in cases which need it most.

[English assassin]

But then again, from what I have experienced thus far, lawyers are very conditioned in thier beliefs. Thus a lawyers perception of justice is usually not one shared by the general populace, this may be one of the reasons lawyers are surrounded by such stigma. This may then seem to negate any view of justice that the lawyers have, as it is in contrast or contradiction to that of the general non-legal populace.

I won't take this personally but my experience is that exact opposite. The general population may have a general sense of fairness (although IMHO they have no difficulty suspending it when it comes to some advantage for themselves) but they seem to have very little idea of justice.

There's a reason why lawyers like things like clearly pleaded cases, evidence discliosed in advance, laws about what evidence is and is not admissible, and so on. Leave it to Joe Public and anyone who already has a criminal record could be banged up on a new charge any time you like, on the basis of a fleeting identification and a lack of an alibi.

If we are speaking of the law this would have to be applied to it as well. Meaning: no need for lawyers nor juries, etc. (if there.) Investigate fairly and judge properly. Those who cannot judge properly, apply sound reasoning, be fair, or anything else required, should not be in the position to judge or to have any say at all in the outcome. Logic, clear minds, and the likes, including all that is just, should dictate justice, the law

The two emboldened paragraphs contradict each other.

[Bijo]

The two emboldened paragraphs contradict each other.

Hmmm, how exactly? From the looks of it you are stating that lawyers and juries are logical, fair, and those other qualities mentioned. That -- precisely(!) -- is contradicting.

Explanation: juries can be easily influenced emotionally, irrationally, etc. AND lawyers will (probably)... "try to move mountains, oceans, and the moon" to win even if they know they are unfair, illogical, perhaps helping a criminal who's guilty let loose, etc. Then it appears not to be about justice, fairness, and the likes, but simply about winning a case.

The problem with that is proper morality.
The justice system should strive to be amoral at all times.
Lawyers are at all times needed in order for all parties to speak with eloquence in regards to the law.

Jury's are also needed, especially in cases where the relevence of a certain sector of modern society is paramount to either the case as a whole, the defence or the prosecution. It adds empathy to Law in cases which need it most.

My excuses, for I will thoroughly read you and respond at a later time.

[KafirChobee]

Law is what a society, or despot makes it. Justice is based on the law of the former (s). Law doesnot equate to justice, it defines it according to the conduct of a society or the will of a few. Justice is in the eye of the beholder, or whom so ever hold the gun on a society. "Power comes from the barrel of a gun." Mao

For your amusement:
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html
http://www.trinity.wa.edu.au/plduffy...olaw/brlaw.htm

[Incongruous]

I won't take this personally but my experience is that exact opposite. The general population may have a general sense of fairness (although IMHO they have no difficulty suspending it when it comes to some advantage for themselves) but they seem to have very little idea of justice.

There's a reason why lawyers like things like clearly pleaded cases, evidence discliosed in advance, laws about what evidence is and is not admissible, and so on. Leave it to Joe Public and anyone who already has a criminal record could be banged up on a new charge any time you like, on the basis of a fleeting identification and a lack of an alibi.



The two emboldened paragraphs contradict each other.

Really? You don't think the public often gets annoyed at lawyers because they see them as unjust, or legasl distortionists?
Oh well then my friend, there may be hope for us budding lawyers yet!

[English assassin]

Really? You don't think the public often gets annoyed at lawyers because they see them as unjust, or legasl distortionists?
Oh well then my friend, there may be hope for us budding lawyers yet!

I quite like the idea of being a legal distortionist. Just before I get going, on the "unjust" point, I think the public has a different idea to justice to a lawyer. as I remarked above, for me as a lawyer justice is by definition the outcome of a fairly conducted trial. As a trial has two sides but only one winner, that means one lawyer must always have been arguing for the "wrong" side. But that does not mean he is unjust, on the contrary, he may be very committed to justice, and understand that it is his duty to take unpleasant cases and defend unpleasant people in the overall interests of justice.

I've never really understood why people think lawyers are such a bad idea. There is a certain irreducible complexity to litigation demanded by fairness. The idea that a system would be more fair, if amateurs were allowed to blunder about in it, rather than use the services of professionals, puzzles me. Its like demanding that there shouldn't be electricians because, given enough time, you could probably work out how to wire up your own house safely.

Additionally, a lawyer is more likely to take an objective view of a case than a person who is themselves bound up in it.

And then it is said that some lawyers are better than others. Well, yes, but if you banned lawyers, some litigants in person would be better than others. At least with lawyers you have an equal chance to hire the best one.

Finally, lawyers try to win cases for clients. Shock !! Its hard to see that the interest of justice would be better served by lawyers not trying to win cases for clients. Our overriding duty is to the court, and we are subject to strict professional duties, which keep us within ethical limits. Which is a lot more than can be said for lay clients, if some of the lying self serving witness statements it has been my misfortune to read are anything to go by.

The truth is, other than knowing the law, which is only a matter of learning, there is no huge mystery to being a lawyer. I sometimes think people think we have some sort of unfair advantage. There is a skill to thinking like a lawyer, just as there is a skill to thinking like a scientist, or a PR person, or a salesman, but its no more profound than an intellectual habit. Rather like being able to solve cryptic crosswords. No one thinks it makes us better people. It doesn't even make you more able to win arguments, other than within the artificial constraints of legal disputes.

[Bijo]

The problem with that is proper morality.
The justice system should strive to be amoral at all times.
Lawyers are at all times needed in order for all parties to speak with eloquence in regards to the law.

Jury's are also needed, especially in cases where the relevence of a certain sector of modern society is paramount to either the case as a whole, the defence or the prosecution. It adds empathy to Law in cases which need it most.

The first statement is true.
The second statement is arguably true or false, but plausibly true.
The third statement is true.

The second paragraph is questionable. It is stated empathy is needed for cases, yet in the first paragraph the second and third statements appear as contradiction. Then naturally -- following the trail I see here -- the validity of having juries is questionable. And what do you mean by "cases which need it most?"


Holistically, practising the law is not about justice, being just, being fair, etc. Add the following (stated by KafirChobee): law does not equate to justice. When I test this expression it is true.

Generally I still stand by my earlier statement of disallowing lawyers and juries for possible reasons already mentioned.

[Incongruous]

The first statement is true.
The second statement is arguably true or false, but plausibly true.
The third statement is true.

The second paragraph is questionable. It is stated empathy is needed for cases, yet in the first paragraph the second and third statements appear as contradiction. Then naturally -- following the trail I see here -- the validity of having juries is questionable. And what do you mean by "cases which need it most?"


Holistically, practising the law is not about justice, being just, being fair, etc. Add the following (stated by KafirChobee): law does not equate to justice. When I test this expression it is true.

Generally I still stand by my earlier statement of disallowing lawyers and juries for possible reasons already mentioned.

You using logic or something?
I hated logic
How does empathy dissallow my statement that Justice system should be amoral? It simply allows a greater insight into certain cases than an old white man (no disrespect) might have.

[Bijo]

If the justice system is to be amoral then empathy must be disallowed.


a·mor·al /eɪˈmɔrəl, æˈmɔr-, eɪˈmɒr-, æˈmɒr-/
–adjective
1. not involving questions of right or wrong; without moral quality; neither moral nor immoral.
2. having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong: a completely amoral person.

That is bad enough already, as stated before, and prevents true justice from occurring.


em·pa·thy (ěm'pə-thē)
n.
1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.
2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

You could even replace "empathy" with "pity" or something in that direction, and the concept of pity was roughly stated, too, before when referring to things such as emotion. It wrongly influences people.

Amorality and Empathy are in contradiction enough to invalidate your post whereto I previously responded to invalidate it. Even if valid -- which it is not -- and even if there have been made true statements in that post, the concept of Amorality -- going at it without proper restraint and good conduct, etc. -- and the concept of Empathy -- allowing tricks of emotion and the likes -- obstruct true justice. True Justice which already has been stated to be more than just law wherein people easily abuse the system.


---------
This is -- at the moment -- the best possible explanation I can bring you, though the previous one should have been sufficient already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

To me all that counts regarding being just is proper (independant) investigation, proper judgment, sound reasoning, logic / argumentation, facts, proper morality, and so on.

I couldn't agree more!

I say we should:
- develop and write down just codes of conduct of based on our knowledge of philosophy, sociology, criminology. All based upon sound reasoning and argumenttion; and with and firm place for history and precedent.
- rationalise and write down the mode in which this system of just conduct is administered.
- systematically train people how to administer proper judgement based on the above. We must also make sure these people are an independent force. There must not be direct political intereference with their daily business!
- train, preferably at an institution of higher education, another professional force to guide people in the workings and application of all the above.

I think we're on to something here!

[Husar]

The .org justice force?

[English assassin]

I couldn't agree more!

I say we should:
- develop and write down just codes of conduct of based on our knowledge of philosophy, sociology, criminology. All based upon sound reasoning and argumenttion; and with and firm place for history and precedent.
- rationalise and write down the mode in which this system of just conduct is administered.
- systematically train people how to administer proper judgement based on the above. We must also make sure these people are an independent force. There must not be direct political intereference with their daily business!
- train, preferably at an institution of higher education, another professional force to guide people in the workings and application of all the above.

I think we're on to something here!

But what shall we call this radical new approach...

[Bijo]

Heh heh. Name a name to amuse me :)

[Andres]

But what shall we call this radical new approach...

"More of the same but in a new package" ?