Justice

[Bijo]

* What is justice?
* Is there justice?
* Is there true justice?
* Do you prefer justice or not?
* Are you just yourself?
* If injustice is there instead, what is (usually) the reason?
* If people are unjust, what is the (usual) reason?
__________________________________________________

My (quick) answers:

> Hah!
> No or hardly.
> No or hardly.
> Yes.
> Yes.
> Personal gain or human error.
> Personal gain or human error.

-

What do I mean by justice? I mean all that it covers. To me a better-sounding term would be justness or the like. To be just. The "holistic" picture of it, not just law (which can be unjust).


just (jŭst)
adj.

1. Honorable and fair in one's dealings and actions: a just ruler.
2. Consistent with what is morally right; righteous: a just cause.
3. Properly due or merited: just deserts.
4. Law Valid within the law; lawful: just claims.
5. Suitable or proper in nature; fitting: a just touch of solemnity.
6. Based on fact or sound reason; well-founded: a just appraisal.


And when I aim my eyes thereto to regard yon meanings... I know that there is no true "being just" existing. Us mortal flawed humans in this dark world. Justice is such an important thing to uphold, yet many'd rather turn a blind eye, or greedily benefit from injustice, or shamelessly apply it, and so on. Is it not great?

For many a century do we know of a thing called justice, justness, yet we -- as humans, humanity -- do not act accordingly; it is far easier to be unjust, just like it is far easier to destroy rather than to build. Though destruction in certain cases could be just, and building could be unjust.

What makes it even easier for some to become unjust, is when others are so already. It's as if being unjust doesn't matter anymore because there exist unjust simpletons aplenty to... "justify" being unjust oneself. But from what I see it looks more like a bad habit that was there to begin with; not that many were just before they were or appeared unjust.

The main factors that lead people to be so are the typical ones which we usually encounter (or one of them) in random order: emotion, desires, passion, etc. It always leads to this basic thing of nature that -- in the end -- controls many, as it's hidden deep away inside the vulnerable human, but is easily exposed and noticed.


Justice, heh. Maybe if my arse learns how to chew gum.

[Don Corleone]

You realize that this topic is dysfunctionally, broad, I hope? I mean you could weigh in on anything from 'sounds good to me' to ole Hammurabi and anything in between. Is there some specific aspect of justice you're intending to focus on? Between nations? In terms of governments dealing with their citizens? Theories behind it?

[Strike For The South]

This whole Paris Hilton thing has given me hope. VIVA LA PROLETRAEIT!

[English assassin]

THIS is justice : [link to zarjaz picture of Judge Dredd removed due to cyber-incompetence on my part]

Surely everyone knew that?

But seriously, possibly the only similarity between Judge Dredd and me (other than that we do both ride motorbikes, but alas only his has bike cannon), is that in the legal context I regard justice as by definition the application of law. To my mind the most important claim that law has to respect is that it is universal (applies to everyone in the same situation), and forward looking (you can tell in advance what the law will say about any given action).

Therefore juries refusing to convict because they do not approve of the crime are to my mind unjust. It introduces an arbitary and capricious element that is the opposite of justice. The way to get rid of a law that has unfortunate effects is not (within the legal or even worse the administrative system) to refuse to enforce it, but to change it through the political system. (If you cannot do that, as may be the case with much of our EU law, then I would question its right to be called law)

Therefore obeying the law IS justice, perps.

[Rodion Romanovich]

* What is justice?

When the acts of the person alone determine how they're perceived and treated. If the same act was done in the exact same way by two different persons, they should get the exact same treatment and judgement. Also, when people have the same chances from start in their lives, given their physical and mental capabilities. In short, society shouldn't alter who benefits in the environment significantly compared to nature.

* Is there justice?

Many are trying hard to make it exist, but there are always cases of injustice.

* Do you prefer justice or not?

With the definition above, justice is a good thing.

* Are you just yourself?

Justice lies in law, not in personal actions, with the definition above. Only lawmen, and laws, can thus be just or unjust.

* If injustice is there instead, what is (usually) the reason?

1. People don't follow the same ethics system, sometimes some ethics systems are repressive and it's understandable that some won't follow them. 2. Some people like to break the rules even in just and fair ethics sytems, just because they see a short term gain in it. 3. Sometimes judges and other lawmen are ruled by ignorance, emotions or incorrect information in making their decisions. Often, laws and ethics systems are also outdated and not updated in time, or laws are passed by politicians without proper research on the effects of it beforehand. 4. There's lobbyist organizations, bribes, and sometimes situations in which politicians trade long term justice to handle a short term crisis, with the bad laws remaining for a long time. 5. There's also injustice of type 2 because people aren't prepared to act in ways that make such actions unbeneficial, by passing laws or by being prepared to cooperate against and fight such a person.

[Bijo]

You realize that this topic is dysfunctionally, broad, I hope? I mean you could weigh in on anything from 'sounds good to me' to ole Hammurabi and anything in between. Is there some specific aspect of justice you're intending to focus on? Between nations? In terms of governments dealing with their citizens? Theories behind it?

Hmmm, I see it -- the topic -- is a broad question but I don't see how it's dysfunctional. Perhaps you could clarify this to me. Turning to some specific aspect of justice -- as in going deep and narrow instead of wide -- wouldn't necessarily improve its functionality, would it?

Personally, I don't really see it as that broad: I think of it in very simple ways.

I simply roughly holistically refer to the descriptions there above -- the six points; being just -- and then observe logically. It shows me that true and absolute being just is not existing.

[ajaxfetish]

I think in simple terms (not getting philosophical or legalistic here, and thus easily open to error) justice means goodness is rewarded with goodness and evil with evil. It could be enforced by men (through law), by nature, (eg karma) or by a divine power (eternal justice of God). Generally speaking I think it is a good thing, as it encourages goodness and discourages evil. Men are unjust when they think they can escape justice and receive good rewards for evil actions.

Ajax

edit: what is considered 'good' or 'evil' is of course subjective, and at the discretion of the judging power (lawmakers, God, natural law, whatever)

[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!

[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.

[Incongruous]

Jesus you're sure of youreself.

Why should that have been sufficient?
Empathy simply allows more understanding of a motive, it does not negate the amoral quality of the law.

[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.

[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" ?

[Sjakihata]

* What is justice?

You do realize that the entire western intellectual history has tried answering that, without coming up with a straight answer, no?

Let me ask this, is justice transcendent or positivistic?

[Bijo]

You do realize that the entire western intellectual history has tried answering that, without coming up with a straight answer, no?

Let me ask this, is justice transcendent or positivistic?

What is the purpose of this question?