Legal justice and its drawbacks? The Merriam-Webster dictionary’s simple definition of justice is ‘1. The process or result of using laws to fairly judge and punish crimes and criminals. 2. A judge in a court of law’ (Merriam-Webster). This definition focuses solely on legal justice which is the common definition of justice. However, this definition leaves out social, moral/ethical, and vigilante justice. These subsections of justice are important as they relate to justice in an individual rather than in a legal system. I think that these definitions of justice need to be included to fully explain the concept of justice. However, it is hard to define a concept due to the wide variety of definitions different people have. An individual’s definition of justice can be completely different to another person’s as everyone has different values and morals depending on how they were brought up. An individual’s environment growing up can influence how they see justice. Differences in opinion can be due to religion, family, or the country an individual lives in. An example is that ‘[p]ublic displays of affection—kissing, hugging, holding hands’ is illegal in the United Arab Emirates whereas it is not in the United States (Middleton). The most important subsection of justice is the legal side of justice because this helps contribute to people living peacefully together. However, legal justice contains many faults which cause injustice to prevail whilst justice is not fulfilled.
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.
What is justice? Is it a fitting punishment for a crime? Or a court or officer of the law? Is it the law itself? It has many definitions and interpretations, depending on various people. Some interpret it very simply, saying that it is fairness in every situation. Others give the word more complication, saying that it is doing what is morally right and fair. Oxford Dictionary defines it as many things, including, “Just behaviour or treatment...The quality of being fair and reasonable.” Black’s Law Dictionary defines justice as, “The constant and perpetual disposition to render every man his due.” All are various meanings and interpretations of one, single, word, that has been explored in many books and novels, including one by Harper Lee. In her novel To Kill a Mockingbird, Harper Lee uses the characters of Atticus and Mr. Raymond to show the meaning of true justice and how it transcends prejudicial divisions.
The literal meaning of justice is ‘the quality of being morally right and fair’ but there are various theories which can be considered and compared since they all define justice in a different way.
Throughout this argument for marijuana legalization, the notion of justice will be repeatedly called upon, and the justice of the current system and policy will be analyzed and disputed. In order for this analysis to happen, justice itself must first be defined thoroughly and given precise parameters. According to Webster's Dictionary, justice is "the quality of being just, impartial, or fair, and conformity to truth, fact, or reason." Justice from this point on will include the following: the logical execution of law or standard based solely on proven facts or truth, and the existence of fairness and equality throughout these actions.
Justice means to put everything in place or having balance in everything that exists. Allah is just by giving everything balance. For example, if the attraction forces between the earth and the sun are lost, everything on this planet will be destroyed. He made everything on the planet perfectly. Another meaning of justice is to follow individual rights. The opposite of justice is oppression. Oppression is when someone takes all your rights away. Justice and equality are two different things. Equality is when people should be treated equally regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, etc. Justice is way more than just equality. It is compared to sizes of animals. They are different sizes but still treated with justice. We know that goodness is good and
The statement "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer" summarises and highlights the mistakes and injustices in the criminal justice system. In a just society, the innocent would never be charged, nor convicted, and the guilty would always be caught and punished. Unfortunately, it seems this would be impossible to achieve due to the society in which we live. Therefore, miscarriages of justice occur in the criminal justice system more frequently than is publicised or known to the public at large. They are routine and would have to be considered as a serious problem in our society. The law is what most people respect and abide by, if society cannot trust the law that governs them, then there will
Is there structural inequality in the criminal justice system? When we watch the news or read our newspapers, we can see that most of the criminals portrayed are of African American or Hispanic descent. Being a fan of true crime novels, they even depict more Black male criminals than White males. Are African American males committing more crimes than White males? What factors are involved for Blacks to be more involved in crime? How do African American stereotypes play a role with possible racial profiling from the policing force? Are Blacks treated fairly in the criminal justice system? After much research, I hope to answer these questions and determine if African Americans
"One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws." Martin Luther King's words, which just correspond with the above assertion, perfectly tell us what to do in face of laws, either just or unjust.
Looking into criminal justice procedure, many administrations are at work. Starting with the police, to the courts and concluding in corrections. Though all these sectors have different tasks, their combined focus is processing the law. Regardless what the process is called criminal justice will continue to serve with discretion, conviction, and correction. When first presented with the question whether criminal justice is a system, non-system, and network I leaned toward a network. Throughout our discussions, lectures, and readings I felt the process presented itself as a network. Intertwined divisions working for a common goal. Further into my research and help from Webster, I decided that the criminal justice
The term justice is used in some of America's most treasured and valued documents, from the Pledge of Allegiance, to the Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. Everyone wants to be treated justly whether it's in the courtroom or the local bar. Most people would feel confident giving a definition for justice, but would it be a definition we could universally agree to? Given that justice is a very common term, and something we all want, it's important to have a precise definition. For hundreds of years philosophers have argued, debated, and fought over this topic. Justice can clearly be defined as the intention to conform to truth and fairness. This is true justice.
Glaucon attempted to prove that injustice is preferable to justice. At first, Glacon agreed with Socrates that justice is a good thing, but implored on the nature of its goodness? He listed three types of “good”; that which is good for its own sake (such as playing games), that which is good is good in itself and has useful consequences (such as reading), and that which is painful but has good consequences (such as surgery). Socrates replied that justice "belongs in the fairest class, that which a man who is to be happy must love both for its own sake and for the results." (45d) Glaucon then reaffirmed Thrasymachus’s position that unjust people lead a better life than just people. He started that being just is
The Oxford English Dictionary defines justice as “The administration of the law or authority in maintaining this”.1 In the play, Death and the Maiden, the playwright, Ariel Dorfman, presents his characters with three conflicting definitions of justice. Gerardo Escobar, a lawyer, epitomizes a man who believes in law and the way the judiciary system works. Conversely, Paulina Salas, Gerardo’s wife, distrusts the legal system and wants to take justice into her own hands. She wants to achieve justice by whatever mean necessary: being vindictive and viciously unforgiving or being fair and reasonable.
Communitarian critics of Rawls have argued that his A Theory of Justice provides an inadequate account of individuals in the original position. Michael Sandel, in Liberalism and the Limits of Justice argues that Rawls' conception of the person divorces any constitutive attachments that persons might have to their ends. Hence, Sandel asserts that Rawls privileges the standpoint of self-interested individuals at the expense of communal interests. I do not find Sandel's specific criticisms to be an accurate critique of what Rawls is doing in A Theory of Justice. However, this does not mean the more general thrust of the communitarian analysis of Rawls' conception of the person must be abandoned. By picking up the pieces
The rule of law is a difficult concept to grasp and proves elusive to substantive definition. However, the following work considers the attempts of various social and legal theorists to define the concept and pertinent authorities are considered. Attitudes and emphasis as to the exact shape, form and content of the rule of law differ quite widely depending on the socio-political perspective and views of respective commentators (Slapper and Kelly, 2009, p16), although there are common themes that are almost universally adopted. The conclusions to this work endeavour to consolidate thinking on the rule of law in order to address the question posed in the title, which is at first sight a deceptively simple one.
Throughout the United States there are many different laws among the fifty states that make up this union. The laws are different throughout the states because of the need of the laws. Living in one state and not having the advantages or disadvantages of a law in another state would not be that unfair or unequal. This is true because if you don’t like a law in your state you could always fight it and try to change it or you could always move out of that state and go to one that has the laws that you like.