What Does Justice Mean to You? When I reflect on what the word “justice” means, I think of a person receiving the appropriate punishment that matches the crime committed. However, that is not as easy as it may seem. There are so many factors to take into consideration now such as the offender’s age and mental state. The nature of the crime also needs to be taken into consideration. To shed light on my viewpoint of justice, I will share a case I found to be disturbing in which I believe justice was not served. I will also share a second case in which I believe perfect justice was served. The case of two year old James Bulger in England quickly became the focus of the community, when they found his lifeless body on the railroad tracks. He had been beaten in the head and sexually assaulted and the assailants were two boys at the age of only ten. James Bulger suffered 42 injuries. ("The James Bulger Case.”) Robert Thompson and James Venables were questioned separately after someone recognized them on camera. They were both given an eight year sentence. Robert Thompson was released from custody at the age of 23. The staff at the Boston Moss Secure Care Centre reported Thompson never showed an ounce of remorse for the horrific murder. Thompson was granted a new identity and anonymity by the …show more content…
My opinion on the birth of right and wrong and morality in general is rooted in faith. For others, the definition of right and wrong may have originated in science or evolution. Some people believe that morality comes from culture and abide by what is accepted and not accepted. Some philosophers believe that morality comes from rationality. (Matteson and Metiever) Either way, since the United States Justice system was adopted from England, there are laws set in place which govern each person to abide by these laws. These are laws put in place to protect citizens so that everyone can live a happy and healthy
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
The judicial system is based off the norms and values that individuals are held to within society. When a person is found guilty of committing a criminal act, there must be a model that serves as the basis of what appropriate punishment should be applied. These models of punishment are often based off of ethical theories and include retribution, incapacitation, deterrence, rehabilitation, and restoration. The retribution model of punishment views the offender as responsible for their actions and as such, the punishment should fit the crime (Mackie, 1982). Incapacitation is a form of punishment that removes an offender from society. This model protects
There are three type of sentencing models used by judges for the sentencing phase of trials; indeterminate, determinate, and mandatory. These sentencing models are used to bring justice to those who are convicted of crimes and must now live with the consequences of their actions. Justice is a word that has a different meaning to each individual person. This paper will discuss, in detail, the meaning of justice, the three types of sentencing models, the pros and cons of each model, and the impact each one has had and continues to have on corrections.
In this essay, I will be examining how the court system can fail to deliver justice for particular cases and people’s circumstances, as well as looking at alternatives to court, like circle sentencing, restorative sentencing and alternatives for children to the formal court system, as outlined in the Young Offenders Act 1997 (NSW). Crime is defined in the Oxford Dictionary as an action or omission which constitutes an offence and is punishable by law. On the other side of this is justice; the quality of being fair and reasonable.
Arguably, there are many reasons for punishment, including: retribution, deterrence, incapacitation, restoration, and rehabilitation. The main aim of criminal law is to punish anybody who does wrong to the society; however, it is clear that there are different goals and forms of punishment as listen above. Notably, these differences exist because of the severity of the crime and its punishment. A murderer can be sentenced to die but a shoplifter cannot face the same sentence. The first type of punishment, retribution, punishes the crime doer because the system believes that it is right and fair. Therefore, it looks back at the crime and matches it with the best possible punishment (Schmalleger, 2013). The second type, incapacitation, is forward
Both boys involved in the murder of James Bulger came from rough backgrounds. The city of Liverpool is known for its poverty. Robert Thompson lived with his single mother and six siblings. Thompson’s aggressive nature concerned teachers and other parents. Jon Venables was the youngest of three. He also disturbed community members. A teacher of his stated, “He would literally throw himself around the room, banging off the walls and furniture” (1). Both boys had a history of violence. Venables once attempted to choke another student with a ruler. Social alienation and financial stress from home may have led them to attack. When questioned by investigators, neither boy revealed a motive; however, Venables said to investigators, "No, I didn't really want to hurt him, I didn't want to hurt him or nothing cause I didn’t was to hurt him with strong things, only like light things... I deliberately missed..." (11, p.11). The boys may have been looking for an outlet for their feelings that led to such acts of violence. Thompson, throughout his interview with investigators and trial kept unusually calm. He seemed almost bored. Venables on the other hand, broke into tears frequently throughout the interview and even asked
There is some theoretical ambiguity in the meaning of Restorative Justice in spite of the many definitions and studies done on the subject. Restorative Justice has been defined as “an ethos with practical goals, among which to restore harm by including affected parties in a (direct or indirect) encounter and a process of understanding through voluntary and honest dialogue.” It is primarily concerned with the reinstatement of victims to life before the crime, restoration of the Offender to a well behaved and lawful life, restoration of the injury caused to the community and the creation of a better society in the present and the future.
We can see that justice is achieved when the punishment for the offender is equal to the crime he/she has committed. Therefore, a social balance is re-established and maintained within society. But, for young offenders these rules are to some extent thrown out the window.
“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.
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.
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.
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:
He never made it to the park. That same day, the little boy's savagely beaten body was discovered outside the park area (Seifert 98). Jon Venables and Robert Thompson of Liverpool, England, made international headlines in November 1994, when they were convicted of murdering James Bulger, age two. The two boys, both ten at the time of the slaying, lured James away from his mother in a shopping mall, took him to a nearby railroad track, beat him brutally and left him to be cut in half by a train (Seifert 56). Many experts do not accept that biology alone creates children who kill.
Parris serves as an investigator for the Floyd County police department. Clemones used to serve as a lieutenant at the Floyd County Sheriff’s Office, but has since left the role of a police officer and now serves as a bondsman for A Bulldog Bail Bonds. In both cases, I started the meeting time by telling the individual that we would be talking about restorative justice and that I would give them a chance to evaluate how it applies to cases they each had experienced. Then, Parris and Clemones were both asked to explain a case in which they believed justice had been served. In the examples that both Parris and Clemones gave, a prison sentence is what caused them to believe that justice had been served. They both mentioned prison time as being what the offender deserved (personal communication, September 23, 2015). It is obvious that both Parris and Clemones have been taught to operate under a highly retributive system, which has caused bias in their views of justice. After they had both mentioned the offenders deserving prison time, I knew persuading them to see the benefits of restorative justice would be
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 would have 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. I could cite several examples where I thought a judge’s or jury’s ruling was not fair, but I won’t because frankly, we’ve all seen those.