Fairness, equity, honesty, and righteousness are all synonyms for the term justice. Whether justice and righteousness will be based on reconciliation or retribution, should thoroughly be based on the severity of the crime, although, everyone should be treated fairly, equal, honestly, and with righteousness; no matter the crime. Reconciliation is “an act of reconciling, as when former enemies agree to an amicable truce”. All justice should be fair and have some reconciliation to a certain point, but whether that point later leads to retribution, should be entirely based on the crime and past crimes. It should not be based on appearance or stereotypes. Reconciliation in spite of the human condition is possible as some people are able to see past …show more content…
In Aglukark's song O’Siem, the concept of “an act of reconciling, as when former enemies agree to an amicable truce” is tremendously indicated throughout the song. O’Siem is all about equality, fairness, honesty, and righteousness; just as justice is all about. “We are all family/ We’re all the same” is a verse in the song that expresses how all people are the same and that we are all family. Which we treat our family with respect, kindness, as well as with fairness so we should treat one another as family as well. Just like treating everyday people with fairness and reconciliation, we should also treat people who do wrong with reconciliation as well. “The wall of change is turning/ For the ones who truly need/ To see the walls come tumbling down” the significance of this verse is that the world is starting to change where at least some reconciliation is given fairly to anyone no matter the circumstances. There is people all around the world who get treated unfairly and only with retribution in the justice system because of stereotypes, race and many other reasons. When everyone should be treated like family as said in the song, and with reconciliation. Aglukark sings “It's time to make the turn/ A chance to share you heart”. This signifies in terms of the justice system and reconciliation or retribution that people who only give out retribution instead of reconciliation, that they should open their hearts
In “The Moral Ambivalence of Crime in an Unjust Society” by Jeffrey Reiman he offers a detailed explanation of many different ways to define justice and allows the reader to fully comprehend the meaning of it. Before he even began explaining justice he gave his own experience with crime as way to convey to the reader how his rights had been violated and he had been filled with anger at the criminals instead of the justice that failed him. This first hand encounter with crime allowed Reiman to prove to readers that justice is what is what protects us and it is the criminals who are the problem. To see that even a man who had thought and written about nothing but crime for thirty-five years could still become
According to Graham, reconciliation is both “… a goal in the sense that it aims to restore relationships or to promote agonism or mutual tolerance, respect, and dignity […] [And] it is a process because it requires multiple modes, steps, stages, and transformations across all levels of society and amongst all stakeholders in a conflict” (Graham 2015). Through reconciliation and the related processes of restorative justice, parties to the dispute explore and overcome the pain brought on by the conflict and find ways to build trust and live cooperatively with each other. Restorative justice seeks to have a positive impact on offenders by confronting them with the consequences of their actions and delineating their responsibilities, giving them both the opportunity to repair the damage caused to the victim and to work on finding a solution to their problems (Umbreit, Bradshaw and Coates, 1999). According to Philpott, there are six components of political reconciliation: building socially just institutions and relations between states, acknowledgement, reparations, punishment, apology, and forgiveness (Philpott
Zehr (1990) who is thought to be one of the pioneers leading the argument for restorative justice highlighted three questions presented when taking a restorative approach; what is the nature of the harm resulting from the crime? What needs to be done to make things right or repair the harm? Who is responsible for this repair? He ascertained that ‘crime is fundamentally a violation of people and interpersonal relationships’. He also noted that violations create obligations and liabilities and that restorative justice seeks to heal and put right the wrongs. Restorative jus...
At some moments justice and forgiveness are different also but for the most part they are
Rehabilitation, retribution, and restoration are seen as the three tenets of justice in Canada. Rehabilitation seeks to help the offender reintegrate into society, restoration focuses on the needs of the victim, and retribution solely looks to punish the offender. Regarding the incarceration system, it is crucial to acknowledge that cruel and unusual punishments doled out through retribution only hold society back from progressing and bettering itself.
Forgiveness is crucial for a clear conscience and peace of mind for the both of them. However, all of this is arguable by the fact that today’s experiences are incomparable to those of Hitler’s times. One cannot begin to place one in each other’s shoes and know exactly how to respond to the events happening. One can only guess how they would respond, but until they are in that moment, all plausible reasoning can change. Nevertheless, forgiveness continues to be an aspect of everyday life in every century.
Restorative justice is defined as “using humanistic, no punitive strategies to right wrongs and restore social harmony” (Siegel, 2008, p. 189). Instead of imposing harsh penalties on offenders like long prison sentences or even the death penalty, restorative justice calls for a more rehabilitative approach, such as reconciliation and offender assistance.
When compared to each-other, each of the religion’s approach to justice and forgiveness is remarkably similar. Although the customs and standards may vary widely, and in fact vary even within different sects of each religion, justice and forgiveness operate on largely the same principle: man’s nature is to act against God’s justice, but man is capable of repairing his relationship with God through the process of forgiveness.
After many discussions involving this topic in the course, I was able to define justice and what it means to me. Although I do not currently work in the field, the classmates who have experience in the field brought great personal experiences to the discussions. University of Phoenix has also contributed to my definition of justice through the facilitators. The facilitators currently work in the field they are teaching and that involves the entire criminal justice field.... ...
Truth in sentencing through the equal justice perspective punishes the criminals through equality, yet remains harsh to serve as a form of deterrence for future
Agreeing on a definition of restorative justice has proved difficult. One definition is a theory of justice that focuses mostly on repairing the harm caused by criminal behaviour. The reparation is done through a cooperative process that includes all the stakeholders. Restorative justice can also be explained as an approach of justice that aims to satisfy the needs of the victims and offenders, as well as the entire community. The most broadly accepted definition for restorative justice, however, is a process whereby all the parties that have a stake in a specific offence collectively resolve on how to deal with the aftermath. This process is largely focused around reparation, reintegration and participation of victims. That is to say, it is a victim-centred approach to criminal justice, and it perceives crime differently than the adversarial system of justice.
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.
We see it effects us in our communities as well: when warring gangs call for a cease-fire after years of senseless killings; when a spouse accepts into his or her home, a marriage partner who has repented from unfaithfulness; when a former addict becomes sober, makes amends, and is fully restored to family and community. Each time we witness an act of forgiveness, we marvel at its power to heal, to break a seemingly unending cycle of pain. Forgiveness is something virtually all Americans aspire to. Following September 11, 2001, Palestinian and Israeli officials issued orders to pull back from aggression and violence. The world is witnessing astonishing acts of forgiveness and of seeking forgiveness. Forgiveness is the key that can unshackle us from a past that will not rest in the grave of things over and done with. As long as our minds are captive to the memory of having been wrong, then we are not free to wish for reconciliation with the one who wronged us.
Hope, Donald. "The healing paradox of forgiveness." Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training 24.2 (1987): 240.
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.’