Types of Justice as Outlined in the Ralsian Theory

The concept of punishment has been debated throughout history by politicians, philosophers, and everyday citizens. One such philosopher, Jeremy Bentham argued that all unwarranted acts done upon another person is evil, which would classify punishment as an evil (Pollock, 2017). Over the years, punishment has become sterilized by the courts that were established when the criminal justice system became more organized. The judicial system now has the responsibility of punishment in the form of a sentence, which is the penalty imposed on a convicted offender during the sentencing in a criminal trial (Schmalleger, & Smykla, 2017). However, the roles of sentencing have been interchanged and argued overtime between the ideas of either to punish or to reform the offender (Schmalleger, & Smykla, 2017).

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.

Retribution is what most commonly referred to as the “just deserts” model that says the punishment should match the “degree of harm a criminal has inflicted on their victims” (Stohr, Walsh, & Hemmens, 2013, p.6). In other words,

A very simple, yet popular and long-standing goal of sentencing is retribution. Criminals are punished according to their crime because they deserve punishment. The idea that a certain crime equals a certain punishment is very simple and could

Reconnecting this interpretation of justice to distribution purely means that the virtue of justice, being concerned with the liberty, rights, and fairness of citizen 's in a society, must consider how the economic opportunities and social conditions affect the citizens in that society. While there may be cases of perceived inequality among the citizens of the just society, those inequalities might be acceptable if certain principles of justice insured the fairness of liberty and rights inherent in justice as the first virtue. Further, any inequalities in authority and wealth could be just, only on the condition that they benefit all citizens. In

Justice. “the quality of being just; righteousness, equitableness, or moral rightness. [dictionary.com]” Justice is implyed when something in the right thing to do, whether or not the decision is in favoe of the reciever. Fairness. “the state, condition, or quality of being fair, or free from bias or injustice; evenhandedness. [dictionary.com]” Fairness is implyed when In To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee, the concepts of justice and fairness are two conflicting topics. They don’t seem like they are two concepts that would have conflicts, though in this story, they are clearly displayed as conflicting topics. One thing is the fair thing to do, but it is not just. Many characters are prime examples of this idea, like Tom Robinson’s

First this essay will demonstrate how Rawls’s theory will affect the society and its structure in terms of basic social institutions, wealth distribution and major economic limits and opportunities. Then, the essay will demonstrate the same for Nozick’s theory on distributive justice. I will then describe, in which society I would prefer to live in and why.

Even though the criminal justice system has guidelines to following when sentencing criminals, there are still sentencing issues. In other words, to make the sentencing more fair and equal, several issues have been addressed. These issues are proportionality, equity, social debt and truth in sentencing. Proportionality is a standard that deals with the punishment fitting the crime. The equity principle deals with ensuring that punishment for one crime is the same as punishment for a similar crime. Social debt is the next sentencing principle. With social debt, the judge reviews past behavior or criminal records in order to impose a fair sentence. Finally, the truth in sentencing ensures that inmates are not released from prison without serving the majority of his or her sentence. In other words, credit for good behavior or educational programs would not allow the inmate to be released if he or she only served a small portion of the sentence (Schmalleger & Smykla, 2011).

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.

John Rawls was an American political and moral philosopher. Rawls attempts to determine the principles of social justice. In this essay, I will elucidate John Rawls’ views on forming a social contract, the counter-arguments against Rawls’ theory and finally the state of debate on the counter-arguments. John Rawls set out on his discussion on justice and fairness in his book A Theory of Justice 1971. Rawls theory describes a society with free citizens holding equal basic rights regardless of the social status (poor or rich). Each society has its way of attempting to bring about equality in its political and economic systems. The tenets of distributive justice, therefore, act as an ethical guide to the

One of the oldest justifications for punishment involves the principles of retribution. Retribution (1900-1905) refers to an idea that offenders should be punished for committing a crime, but would not punish someone who was forced to commit a cri-me, i.e. duress. It can be sometimes be viewed as a

There are five common approaches to punishments. The first one is deterrence. It’s basically saying that if people know that they will be punished for such a crime, then they will think twice about committing it. If no one ever got punished for robbing a bank, than everyone

It should be noted however that the classical school of thought has had an enduring influence as many legal systems are built on some of its key precepts. The idea of intent for example, emphasizes the importance of the state of mind of the individual and their capacity for making choices. Notions of proportionality in relation to punishment are

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

Theories of why we punish offenders are crucial to the understanding of criminal law; in fact it is not easy to define legal punishment, however one thing is clear within the different theories of punishment is that they all require justification.[1] There are many theories of punishment yet they are predominantly broken down into two main categories. The utilitarian theory seeks to punish offenders to discourage, or “deter,” future wrong doing. The retributive theory seeks to punish offenders because they deserve to be punished due to their behaviour upsetting the balance of society[2].