When trying to define justice it requires one to look at the moral perspective of right and wrong but also the way society views right and wrong. One definition of justice is “judgment involved in the determination of rights and the assignment of rewards and punishments” (wordnetweb.princeton.edu). In trying to understand justice, it is also important to understand human nature as well as how it responds to injustice. People tend to want vengeance or punishment for a crime against them. They believe the law should do that by establishing the rules, determining guilt, and then fixing the appropriate penalty. Problems or conflicts often come when the offender never understands the consequences of his or her actions or the victim disagrees with the punishment. Justice cannot just be about retribution without acknowledging the responsibly of the harm that has been done, so that society or individual can restore themselves and begin to heal.
In the book Rethinking Justice by Richard H. Bell, the author seems to define justice as a testament to our humanity seeing it as encouraging a person’s well-being and virtuous living as well as support community reconciliation (Bell 1,2). It is difficult to verify exactly what Bell is trying to say, since there is a great deal of emphasis on other writers. The overall theme gives the impression that Bell feels the need to promote a more compassionate and merciful type of judgment placed upon individuals and humankind. On the other hand, C.S. Lewis in the book Mere Christianity has the viewpoint of justice as being a virtue described as fairness, which includes honesty, give and take, truthfulness, and keeping promises. Similarly to Bell, it is also not just about the law or the legal system (Le...
... middle of paper ...
...ed on more than just one’s own opinion or moral values of what is right and wrong. Any justice system cannot account for every situation, but serving and meeting the needs of society through trust, compassion, harmony, and respect seems like a reasonable course of action in order to better humanity. Doing the “right” thing not out of duty or obligation can sometimes be difficult. The outcome of a decision could be rewarded or there could be terrible consequences. The strive for justice can only be found by seeking understanding beyond our own reality.
Works Cited
Bell, Richard H. Rethinking Justice: Restoring Our Humanity. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2007.
Print.
Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins , 2001. Print.
"wordnetweb.princeton.edu." 20 Dec. 2010. WordNet. Web. 21 Jan. 2011. .
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
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.
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.
Encyclopedia Britannica Defines Justice as the concept of a proper proportion between a person’s deserts (what is merited) and the good and bad things that befall or are allotted to him or her. There is a duality to the idea of justice because it acts as a reward and a deterrent. It makes sure the people who abide by rules get treated “justly” but also insures an example out of the people who break laws so that the amount of law-breakers dissipates. Judgment’s importance stems from its dual-concept base. Britannica defines it in terms of law and thought. Judgment in all legal systems is a decision of a court adjudicating the rights of the parties to a legal action before it. The Encyclopedia explains judgment in thought using multiple components:
Justice is described as “a moral concept that is difficult to define, but in essence it means to treat people in ways consistent with
What is justice to you. Justice is known to dictionary.com as, “the quality of being just; righteoussness, equitableness, or moral rightness”. So how do you define justice. Is it fairness or correctness, maybe it’s throwing all the bad guys in jail. In To Kill a Mockingbird and The Merchant of Venice justice is defined several times in several different ways that open to our eyes if we look through one of the character’s. When looking through a character’s eyes we must take a look at someone’s background hence absorbing their perspective and understanding their
When somebody gets away with a crime some people can view them having a bad rep against their name as being justified while other people believe that validation isn’t present until they feel the same pain as we do. In my opinion I view justification on a scale depending on how awful of a crime the person committed. When I see a story of someone brutally abusing a person and they are found guilt I believe that what they did to that certain individual should be done onto them “what you do onto other shall be done onto you” is something I say and truly trust in my mind. When it comes to small crime such as stealing and DUIs and they are found guilty then a little jail time spent with other aggressive criminals is justice well served in my mind. On the other hand, when a person gets off from an absurd crime and then admits to being guilty for the crime they cannot be put back on trial for the same reasoning due to the laws protection of double jeopardy, then revenge is generally plotted by loved ones taken place by the anger and hatred they have for that
It is a middle ground between the best and the worst. The inclination of all is to do injustice without paying any price for that action, the worst is to suffer injustice without being able to take revenge (37). It follows then that justice becomes a mean between these two extreme scenarios. Most people will tend to value justice not because it is a good in itself but because they do not have the ability to do injustice without negative consequences. An individual that does possess the ability to practice injustice without consequence will therefore never willingly enter into agreement not to do injustice for the simple proclamation of not to suffer it. For a man such as this, that would be truly mad.
The definition of justice and the means by which it must be distributed differ depending on an individual’s background, culture, and own personal morals. As a country of many individualistic citizens, the United States has always tried its best to protect, but not coddle, its people in this area. Therefore, the criminal justice history of the United States is quite extensive and diverse; with each introduction of a new era, more modern technologies and ideals are incorporated into government, all with American citizens’ best interests in mind.
Justice can always be taken advantage of or even be corrupted by people who wish to take advantage of it. In a world governed by justice it must be taken care of and looked after closely by people that know the difference between ruling for justice or just killing because you think it necessary. Justice will always be in this life rather in a book or in a courtroom being handed down by a jury of your own peers.
Justice plays a valuable part in the public’s life; no matter who you are or where you are from. In Michael Sandel’s Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? the reader encounters six specific approaches to lawfulness and ethical morality, which constitute of utilitarianism, libertarianism, Locke, Kant, Rawls, and Aristotle. Each of these definitive philosophies falls under one of three general concepts and categories. These consist of freedom, virtue, and welfare. Exclusively judging the title of the book, one may think that it attempts to solve or bring forth ethical and moral issues of our time. After reading the book however, the reader becomes aware that Sandel’s work is much
Most people would dispute that the significance of law in society is to obtain justice, however justice is simply a term which is determined subjectively, it relates to an individuals
In the case of punishment, justice must be upheld, and to be just, one must be fair. It appears intuitively clear that it would be unjust to punish someone who stole a packet of gum from a grocery store with a death sentence. Similarly, it would be unjust to treat a murderer to just a few years in prison. Why is this? It seems that in order to be considered fair, the punishment for a crime must be deemed proportional – that the criminal is given what they deserve. This entails Pojman’s (2006) theory of the symmetry, detailing that when someone performs a negative act, they are worthy of blame or punishment proportionate to their initial act. Similarly, when someone performs a positive act, they are worthy of praise or reward, proportionate to their initial act. This is undeniably a matter of desert and explains why it follows that the previous cases could not justly be considered equals (Lenta and Farland, 2008). Some argue, that qualifying what level of punishment one deserves is in and of itself unjust. In this way, judged moral worth, it is argued, is placed second to the carrying out of punishment (Mills, 2004). An underlying issue in this argument is known as the epistemological problem (Pojman, 2...
The word "justice" appears frequently in many of the United States' documents, such as the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Pledge of Allegiance. According to Wikipedia, “justice is a concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, religion, equity and fairness, as well as the administration of the law, taking into account the inalienable and inborn rights of all human beings and citizens, the right of all people and individuals to equal protection of their civil rights, without discrimination on the basis of race, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, age, and / or other characteristics" (Wikipedia). Harper Lee expands on the idea of justice in her novel, To Kill A Mockingbird.
Without the understanding of what really happened in an event or place and time justice is not being sought out and can’t be dealt to those that need it. We all have felt wronged, at one time or another, in one form or another and I feel that is why we all have a common interest in seeking justice.