What is Justice?

[nester-san]

I have been wondering about this since reading posts by others about Adams and Crime in Jamaica.

definition:

The quality of being just; fairness.
The principle of moral rightness; equity.
Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness.
The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law.
Law. The administration and procedure of law.
http://www.answers.com/justice&r=67

I have not seen anything within that pages definitions for punishment as part of justice.

So when we corner a thief or a criminal and either administer "street justice", or police kill them, according to the definitions that is not justice.

Where does punishment fit in ?

What determines the cost an individual should pay for the crimes they commit ?

Case in point, I think going to prison for 7-15 years for rape is far too lenient because rape is a violation of someones individuality and destroys as permanently as murder a part of the person.

[nuhsenutten]

this is what i found nester-san

If a person lives under a certain set law in a certain country, justice is considered making the person follow the law and be punished if not.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

Human beings definition of justice is subjective. Our determination of what is just and fair is limited by our ability to know and understand all the facts, implications and consequences of particular actions. So what constitutes "justice" is dependent on what standard or value system you subscribe to.

THis thread on subjective vs. objective morality talks about related themes. (http://www.caribyard.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2630&highlight=objective+morality)

[Izemi-Clem]

Hail


I have not seen anything within that pages definitions for punishment as part of justice.
So when we corner a thief or a criminal and either administer "street justice", or police kill them, according to the definitions that is not justice.


:icon_arro Nester you seemed to have overlooked something here, in the definition you provided it mentions "due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law."

So therefore I imagine that if any action is perpetrated which is deemed an offence and the perpetrator gets a "sheet ah beatin" from a mob, it follows that he/she has gotten his/her reward for the offence committed.
That example is of course by "Street Justice" standards, but it is the fairness of the reward given which determines (by a given standard) whether or not justice was done or served, whichever the case maybe.


Human beings definition of justice is subjective. Our determination of what is just and fair is limited by our ability to know and understand all the facts, implications and consequences of particular actions. So what constitutes "justice" is dependent on what standard or value system you subscribe to.

:icon_arro BCK lets take a look at this definition:

Justice is the fair and impartial treatment of others by whoever in accordance to what is deemed to be their inalienable rights: rights inherited, earned or otherwise deserved.

What is subjective is the treatment (reward) meted out with respect to the person's rights. It differs only in its interpretation by the powers that be as to whether or not the treatment is fair or is deserved.

Justice I believe is in itself an absolute term.

Izemi-Clem

[nester-san]

Fair enough, but I have always heard justice should be tempered with mercy, do you that should apply in all cases, or that should be left to the discretion of the judges/jury/unruly mob.

I see cases on tv and all over the world, where the amount of mercy seems to sway heavily in one direction or the other, sometimes without rhyme or reason. 200 years for murder, 10 years for growing weed, then you hear 7 years for murder, 1 year for growing weed. I even heard of this judge in brazil who send people to hang for drunk driving third offenses.

[BlackCryptoKnight]

:icon_arro BCK lets take a look at this definition:

Justice is the fair and impartial treatment of others by whoever in accordance to what is deemed to be their inalienable rights: rights inherited, earned or otherwise deserved.

What is subjective is the treatment (reward) meted out with respect to the person's rights. It differs only in its interpretation by the powers that be as to whether or not the treatment is fair or is deserved.

Justice I believe is in itself an absolute term.

Izemi-Clem

Hail Izemi.

I think we're saying the same thing, but phased a little differently. You are right. The definition of justice is objective, and absolute, but humans are limited in their ability to perceive all the relevant facts in every situation that would allow us to determine what is just and fair in every situation. That is where subjectiveness comes in.

[ramesh]

So if someone kills my brother, for justice to take place I must kill him or his brother?


“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” -Mahatma Gandhi

[nester-san]

So if someone kills my brother, for justice to take place I must kill him or his brother?


“An eye for an eye will only make the whole world blind.” -Mahatma Gandhi


Some people are quite fine with that!!

[ramesh]

:icon_arro nester-san

What I meant was what would define justice in this case?

1. Killing the murderer of my brother.

-or-

2. Killing his brother.

:icon_ques

[nester-san]

Well.. it would depend on a bit of things, namely you both would have to have the same amount of emotional connection to your brothers for it to be fair. Also, would you be willing to take an "innocent" life in the name of equal punishment.

Some people could.

The easiest way is to just kill the murderer and be done.