“We live in a world where justice is skewed.” This statement can be interpreted in many different ways. I personally think that this statement means that the way our justice system can be altered in good ways and bad ways. In the many stories we have read there were different situations that altered the justice system. Many people view justice in different ways. Throughout the stories we have read, there were many different ways that justice was skewed, both positively and negatively. No way is particularly better than the other, however most people favor one way or another. Thsi statement is true in many situations and can be applied to our lives.
In the story “Wasps’ Nest” by Agatha Christie, The French detective, Hercule Poirot, goes to England to speak with an old friend (Christie 761). When he arrives he solves a case where a man was going to kill himself and blame it on someone else, luckily Poirot intervened (Christie 761-7). No crime was actually committed in the story so no justice was served, however, it was still skewed. Hercule stole the cyanide from Harrison and replace...
The author believes the maldistribution of any punishment is not relevant to its justice – The guilty are punished, not one’s race, economic, or social status.
The question of “What is Justice?” plagued the ancient philosophers and continues to plague the professional and amateur academic philosophers of today. The question is so hard, because it is quite difficult to know where to begin. Socrates1 spoke of justice in relation to the gods, Plato in relation to an individual’s duty in society, and Achilles, in a somewhat indirect way, in relation to honor and loyalty. All three of these men had very convincing arguments about the true nature of justice, but it is impossible to say now, or most likely ever, whether any of them actually got it right. The current goal is to synthesize their ideas with those of Aristophanes, Euripides2, and even Richard Kraut, representing the modern academic philosopher, in an effort to further develop and test the concept of justice.
In conclusion, "To strive for justice, one must be a person of principles. There is no single principle that one can use to achieve justice in the resolution of legal disputes." This is true because one must use a wide array of principles that come from moral and legal perspectives in order to gain a resolution. Unfortunately society has deemed it necessary to incorporate social stratification into some of these principles. The law tends to have more leniencies to those who have higher positions in society. With as many classes as our society today, it is impossible to find a jury of peers. Each person has their own idea of cultural norms, legal and moral principles, and a socio-class in which they belong to. Therefore, I contend that social stratification, whether it is between races, or economical levels, will always have some role in legal decisions.
“We live in a world in which justice is skewed.” Justice is when someone gets what they deserved due to an action that they executed. Due to justice not being fair, it is skewed in one way or another when solving a mystery, weather a murder or any other case that may require the detective/officer or the criminal to do something that my be illegal. It may be for the good or bad but, it does not change the fact that an action is illegal. Very rarely cases are solved without twisting or bending a law one way or another.
Today, we see it everywhere. On reality tv, court tv, and even on the news. We are constantly required to judge peoples actions as just or unjust.
Commonsense justice and jury instructions are placed together to exemplify the informative and the response between the two; like the “analytic and beneficial”. Conjoining these two objectives, gives them “instructive potential for the law;” with the verdicts of not guilty, or hung juries, and jury nullification. These two objectives are “more likely the failure of jury instructions,” [slightly] than the “failings of jurors.”” (Norman J. Finkel, 2000).
Many people in London are not willing to accept murder as a form of justice as previous research reports and most especially the family of Mark Duggan. Duggan’s family together with many other people opposes the lawful killing arguing that the killing was not properly justified. On the other hand, the state of London carried out investigations and found out that the killing was vindicated and thus it was a lawful killing according to the metropolitan police. The report given by the government to mark the accountability of the killing of Mark Duggan lawfuly took a period of three and half years to be written and had been announced to the public and the family of Mark Duggan. The mother of Mark Duggan, Pamela Duggan said that the state’s report was just like a slap in the face because it took much time to come up with the report and thus Pamela as the mother of Mark did not trust the report. To some extent, Pamela Duggan was right because it is impossible for a state of a nation to carry out investigations for the killing of one person for a period of more than three years meaning that the investigations had been interfered with by government officials in the fear of being blamed of having murdered someone. At each and every stage of the investigation, the state has been seen to avoid the blame of having murdered Mark Duggan and
Justice cannot be served until the debate on capital punishment is resolved and all states have come to agree that the death penalty is the best way to stop crime completely.
Is our justice system fair to all? Although the answer to this question is an opinion, there are pieces of evidence and commentary to defend this argument. The process of the legal system itself is all an opinion because in the end, the only person whose judgments matter is the judge himself. Over time, the wrong people have been arrested for the wrong things. Living in the United States, a country where crimes are committed constantly; we count on this system to make the right decisions. It is important that each case is treated equally when carrying out justice to keep the United States a safe place, to form a nation with good education, and to teach people from judging right from wrong. However, sometimes rights are taken from the wrong people. Our legal system is creating a dangerous path for African Americans in our country because of its’ highest per capita incarceration rate, its’ favoritism towards those in power, and its failure to carry out justice to protect people from the dangerous acts of those who are defined as criminals.
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will be serious consequences including the possible breakdown of that society. In order to have a fair and just society, miscarriages of justice must not only become exceptional but ideally cease to occur altogether.
By viewing the justice system from an equal justice perspective, truth in sentencing does not account for the criminal offender’s motives for breaking the law. A judge may believe it is morally right to lessen the punishment of an offender, who had good intentions for committing the crime. An individual may be placed in a circumstantially difficult situation, which could force them to commit a crime. Unfortunately for those individuals, truth in sentencing in the equal justice perspective does not allow for the judge’s discretion in that case. Therefore, if two people commit the same crime, yet one had negative intentions, he or she would face the same punishment as someone who did not have these intentions. A judge loses this power consider motive because all criminals of the same crime are viewed as equal. By restricting a judge’s discretion, it creates injustice within the courts. Actions are based on their motives and a judge should have the ability to consider it when making a decision that can greatly impact another individual’s life. Therefore, truth in sentencing and the equal justice perspective need the discretion of a judge to justly establish a fair sentence that accounts for all aspects of the individual and their
Of course I looked “justice” up in the dictionary before I started to write this paper and I didn’t find anything of interest except of course a common word in every definition, that being “fair”. This implies that justice has something to do with being fair. I thought that if one of the things the law and legal system are about is maintaining and promoting justice and a sense of “fairness”, they might not be doing such a spiffy job. An eye for an eye is fair? No, that would be too easy, too black and white.
Today’s justice system is broken and flawed, with a history of falsely convicting innocent people due to a variety of things, including eyewitness misidentification, invalid or improper forensic testing, and even racial bias on the jury. Many wrongful convictions happen as a result of a combination of these things, and other causes can contribute in each individual case (“causes”). Countless people throughout history have been punished for crimes they did not commit, and with recent advancements in DNA testing bringing about hundreds of exonerations of the wrongfully convicted, one has to wonder how many innocents have languished in prisons throughout history. With all the flaws and potential for error in our courtrooms today, justice can not be brought about by our current system; in order to repair it, we need governmental reform to promote true equity and prevent future miscarriages of justice.
So if justice in considered to be fair, that would make something unjust, unfair, right? What if an innocent person was proven guilty in a court of law and spent time in jail or money to pay a fine? That would be considered just, because in the court of law he was in fact proven guilty, however it would also be unfair because the person is innocent. This is the same result in another case, the most current issue and most relative in my belief would be Affirmative Action. If justice is in fact fair, therefore not treating persons of different races or gender any different then Affirmative Action is unjust, and although I do not oppose such a policy, I still see it as unjust.
One component of the definition of justice is the final outcome of the process of the law, whereby justice is distributed by the State. According to this definition, justice is the mechanical process of the structure of law – set in place and agreed to by the people of the State. Another definition is concerned with the value inherent in ‘just’ behavior. One distinction between these two definitions is the difference between an individual viewpoint and the larger view of the society. Either view incorporates the concept of moral judgment; ‘good’ as opposed to ‘bad.’