In recent times, I have wondered…
What is justice?
You see, when a person commits a crime, on occasion their case goes through the legal system.
Justice is often thought of as sowing what your reap. This is a strange concept because you see, the whole reason for a victim charging someone on a crime is so the victim can get justice.
What is the justice in that? For you see, the evil villian per say may well get his/her just deserts but what of the victim. They committed no crime but nor did they achieve an act of valor, so who are they to be rewarded for bringing about a criminals demise?
In the end, who is the guilty party? The one who commits the crime or the one who calls them on it? One did wrong and the other proftits from it? Surely that is not justice, but then I must wonder, just what pray-tell might it be?
Justice can be understood in two very different ways. The first is procedural justice, where justice is said to be done if fair procedures (however defined) are followed, whatever the outcome. The other category is substantive justice, which is concerned enitrely with outcomes, regardless of the procedure. These two categories are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but they do help us organize our thinking about justice in general. So the question “What is justice?” requires us consider if justice is essentially procedural or essentially substantive. I think that most of us would lean toward substantive justice as an ideal, but would believe that, given our limitations, procedural justice is, in most cases, the best we can hope for.
I suppose the better question is “Who is justice for?” Justice, is it for the people or is it just treatment for the criminal? We have the idea of victim compensation. It is this idea that has led to the great and beautiful “Sue-happy America”, which suggests that whenever something goes wrong you must be compensated. If you stub your toe, you must get a hug as fair compensation. If McDonald’s accidently charges you once cent to much, you must get millions in compensation.
It is this that makes you wonder is justice well and thriving in the world or is it all a lost cause leaving the legal system to absorb the blows from people searching for justice because their toe was stubbed.
fairness or reasonableness, especially in the way people are treated or decisions are made
law: the legal system or the act of applying or upholding the law
*Encarta Dictionary: North America
That’s what justice is by definition. Justice isn’t necessarily an equal opposite to the unjust, but it should atleast be reasonable, or it isn’t justice.
Justice is concerned with matters of fairness and equality between two parties. The one who acts unjustly and the one who experiences unjustice. The unjust may not believe he has been unjust in one instance, so then a mediator decides. The question of what is Just and what is unjust must be clearly laid out as law Punishment should go to the unjust to correct him. A reward to the just :
To balance out his losses.
For the good he has shown in directing the unjust closer to what is good.
but, If the Just profits in excess and he accepts more than is due to him, I believe this shows him to be a man of bad character, coz even a man of courage who never turns down a challenge becomes a fool and is not praised for his bravery.
The act remains just.
But is a bad man capable of any just actions? (Assuming a bad man does not seek any good). Do we say then there is no Justice?
Then the law and the mediator should be brought into question, should’nt it. Not Justice.