Justice and Fairness are not Always the Same

Many of the most important aspects of and decisions about social organization hinge on an individual or society’s conception of justice. Because this conception of justice has tremendous influence over the way societies are structured, political theorists interested in understanding and improving society place great importance on understanding and articulating the nature of justice. While most of the political theorists we have read in class have proposed definitions of justice, none of them sufficiently incorporate the many dimensions of justice while remaining specific enough to allow for relatively consistent distinctions between the just and unjust. To balance these competing demands, I propose that justice is the impartial ordering of

In The Republic, the great philosopher Plato attempts to reveal through the character and dialogues of Socrates that justice is better when it is the good for which men must strive for, regardless of whether they could be unjust and still be rewarded. His method is to use dialectic, the asking and answering of questions. This method leads the audience from one point to another, supposedly with indisputable logic by obtaining agreement to each point before going on to the next, therefore, building an argument.

In addition to our other rights, we have the rights to enforce the law and judge on our own behalf. We may intervene in cases where our own interests are not directly under threat to help enforce the law of nature. Still, the person who is most likely to enforce the law under these circumstances is the person who has been wronged. The basic principle of justice is that the punishment should be proportionate to the crime. When victims are judging a crime; they likely to judge it of greater severity than an impartial judge. As a result, there will be miscarriages of justice.

Despite what the dictionary says, there are many definitions of the word justice based on the world’s opinions. The opinions then depend on the situation at hand. There is the discussion of justice for the person who has been hurt, for the person who has conceived a crime, and even for those who have committed an accident. In the end, justice is intended to establish an equal solution for any circumstance. Every person in society deserves to be punished equally for the crimes they have committed to ensure justice is served.

Throughout years in the criminal justice system, women being incarcerated has increased drastically. Since the amount of women offenders increased above male offenders, equality is sought out. There is an expand amount of gender disparities in federal cases. With women seeking equality through justice over the decades, changes should be made within the justice system to provide impartiality, acknowledge the gender difference and it’s importance.

Is our justice system fair? Is our justice system truly set out to do what it was meant to do? Or are there social factors and memory errors that come into play that can change a conviction outcome. In today’s court rooms we have, Defense attorneys, Prosecutors, judges, juries, evidence, forensics experts, witness testimonies, and of course the human memory. What better type of evidence than the human memory, right? Unfortunately, human memory is subject to the power of suggestion and unable to truly recall an event when told to recall. In other words, the story may not be the same as the one that actually happened the day of that event because many variables come into play like cross examinations and the way a question can be asked can alter the answer or how the event was perceived. The main focus of this paper is to see how the human brain is not able to effectively recall events which could possibly convict an innocent person of wrong doing. Also how lawyers use the misinformation effect to their advantage. In order to understand how something as simple as a question can decide a person’s faith we must first answer some questions. First, How does memory actually work and how is memory retrieved when your need to answer a question or being cross examined? Second, how does the misinformation effect play a role when a witness needs to testify against the defense or vice versa? Third, how can structuring a word or sentence effect the outcome of a conviction?

Procedural justice, is concerned with making and applying decisions according to fairness. Rules must be impartially followed and consistently applied in order to create an unbiased decision. Those carrying out the procedures should be neutral, and those directly affected by the decisions should have some voice or representation in the decision-making process such as a jury and its witness testimonies. Procedural justice amounts to four basic actions such as treat people with respect, listen to what they have to say, make fair decisions, and explain your actions. Social justice, is the largest and most important form of justice to most societies. Social justice is about assuring the protection of equal access to liberties, rights, and opportunities,

Justice is defined by the fairness in protection of rights and punishment of wrongs. This concept intends to offer a fair punishment that fits the offense. The term itself holds a positive connotation, in contrast to the word injustice. The United States’ judicial system built its operations off of granting justice to those put on trial. Judges within the judicial system strive to hold fair trials in order to prosecute offenders accordingly.

The United States Federal Communications Commission, also known as the FCC, introduced the Fairness Doctrine to make broadcasters report controversial issues of public importance in a manner that was equally balanced, honest, and fair. Broadcasting companies were required to provide a certain amount of airtime reporting accurate and fair information both for and against public issues. Broadcasters were not required to provide equal time for opposing views, but were required to present opposing viewpoints. Broadcasters were received broader boundaries as how to how they were to provide those opposing views. Because under the constitutional right of free speech, the government wanted to insure that broadcasting companies provided both

The administration of punishment should serve the offender and should be in the form and severity that is necessary for the meeting of the objective.

Justice is neither automatic nor inevitable; the attainment of justice typically entails the sacrifice and suffering of those attempting to achieve it. In essence justice is an ideal, which the majority of individuals universally attempt to realize or uphold, however due to the avarice or agendas, which serve the interests of minorities, this ideal is sometimes subverted. Those performing the miscarriage of justice can become unscrupulous in their methods of maintaining this standard of injustice in efforts of self-preservation. This often results in the suffering of those carrying out their quest for justice. This idea, and the concept that the miscarriage of justice can have long lasting and far reaching effects which can never be fully

In American society, justice is blind. Justice is commonly defined as a rightful or lawful act. Or in other terms to bring to justice, to come before a court for trial or to receive punishment for one’s misdeeds. Some believe it is fairly administered and equal. But lack within the criminal justice system make us question equality. There are two individual aspects of how justice can be served; the perspective of the victim and the perspective of the criminal "per say". I will be focusing on instances in which wrongfully people were punished for crimes they didn 't commit and families or victims thought justice was served. The first case in which justice was wrongfully served is the case of Louis Taylor. Louis Taylor did forty-one years to life for something he didn 't do. Secondly, Steven Avery served eighteen years for being wrongfully convicted for rape. Although in Avery 's case he was exonerated through DNA testing.

The conventional accounts of Justice normally begin by stating a fundamental rule of Aristotle – Justice is to treat equals equally and unequals unequally, and that unequal treatment should be in proportion to the inequality. In everyday life though, justice is seen as an attribute of law, while all laws are not necessarily just. Many great socio- political movements of the world have focused from time to time on unjust laws eg Apartheid laws in South Africa and Caste laws in India. Impartiality and fairness are understood to be the two aspects of justice. But it would be misleading to suggest that Justice refers solely to the fair application of a rule.

In Book I of the Republic, Plato examines whether injustice is more profitable than justice. Thrasymachus claims that statement to be true so Socrates sets out to show that justice is stronger and more powerful than injustice. Also, that a just person is happy while an unjust person is unhappy. Socrates establishes right before with Thrasymachus that injustice is wisdom and virtue while injustice is ignorance. From this, Socrates believes it will be easily shown that justice is stronger. In this paper, I will begin by examining Socrates’ weaker argument that says a just person is happy. Here, he claims that the virtue of a soul is justice, and the soul has multiple functions that can only be performed well through justice. However, this

Over the decades, the concept of justice has been continually evolving. This is occurring based upon different moral or legal interpretations. Evidence of this can be seen with observations from Burke (2011) who said, "Few things are of more importance to a society than its concept of justice. This is because it is justice that provides criterion for the legitimate use of force. In the name of justice people are detained, arrested, handcuffed, put on trial and punished. This concept is used to provide every society with some kind of social order. Over the last 200 years, a revolution has taken place with these principles. Our idea of it is what we employ, when dealing with ordinary individuals in daily life including: making agreements, paying bills, resolving disputes and putting criminals in jail. This is a concept that is as old as recorded history and it is familiar to people everywhere. What makes it so unique is that these ideas are constantly changing which focuses on society as a whole and how people are interacting with each other. " (Burke)