What is Justice?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Tommok

Punishment is intended to keep those and other people from doing the same thing in the future, and the open "threat" with it is what is supposed to keep those acts from happening in the first place. This system is (more or less) beneficial for the well-being of a group of people, i.e. a society.

Deterrence isn't justice, it's pragmatism.

Quote:

Revenge on the other hand as motivation for punishment is not so good. In order for your society to work well, you should keep the idea of acting out of revenge in general to a minimum, as this doesn't contribute to the well-being of your group. Things tend to work better if people understand this and therefore try to direct their reactions to their emotions accordingly.

People want revenge. People need to feel like there's been retribution. People like deterrence, but they need to believe that if someone is not deterred, at least they get what's coming to them.

A justice system, first and foremost, should ensure that retribution is being meted out in a dispassionate, even-handed, and commensurate way. That punishments are imposed fairly, and that punishments fit the crime. A society can survive even if crime is not entirely (or even greatly) deterred. A society cannot survive if its citizens don't believe that criminals can fairly get what they deserve.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by psionl0

If the closest we can get to "justice" is subjecting people to legal technicalities then I repeat, it's a pity.

It's only a pity if we can get any closer to the ideal.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

Although I can see possibilities of achieving justice in some situations I think there are many where it will elude us. I will give you an example of such:

I colleague of mine some years ago, told a gathering at the office, of an incident involving his wife's less than astute driving.

As she was rounding a corner, a tray of cakes she had on the seat next to her, obeyed dynamic law and moved to the edge of the seat. The woman reacted to save the cakes and lost control of the car. The car mounted the curb and smashed into the fence of a property.

There was much laughter from the gathering. Being all male, some no doubt saw some reinforcement of their prejudice, that women drivers were lacking in ability. The damage to the fence was paid for by our colleague, and justice was done.

Now imagine if someone had been on the footpath. Someone who was killed or injured as a result of this misadventure. How would justice look in that instance?

Put yourself in the position of a loved one of the person killed by such carelessness. If it was your wife or child, what would come closest to making things right? And don’t play the part of the uber-rational person here, put yourself in the mind of the average person.

I think the average person wants, at the end of the day, revenge. Most people aren’t going to hunt the driver down and kill them but they do want the justice system to punish them. A few defensive driving classes to make them better, more careful drivers isn’t going to cut it.

[jrhowell]

Originally Posted by Tommok

Punishment is intended to keep those and other people from doing the same thing in the future, and the open "threat" with it is what is supposed to keep those acts from happening in the first place. This system is (more or less) beneficial for the well-being of a group of people, i.e. a society.

Revenge on the other hand as motivation for punishment is not so good. In order for your society to work well, you should keep the idea of acting out of revenge in general to a minimum, as this doesn't contribute to the well-being of your group. Things tend to work better if people understand this and therefore try to direct their reactions to their emotions accordingly.

Before the creation of formal justice systems the fear of revenge was a big part of keeping people in line. I believe that it is a fundamental part of human nature. It is hard to move beyond that.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by xjx388

Put yourself in the position of a loved one of the person killed by such carelessness. If it was your wife or child, what would come closest to making things right? And don’t play the part of the uber-rational person here, put yourself in the mind of the average person.

I think the average person wants, at the end of the day, revenge. Most people aren’t going to hunt the driver down and kill them but they do want the justice system to punish them. A few defensive driving classes to make them better, more careful drivers isn’t going to cut it.

I would be interesting to conduct a survey of people, who were bereaved as the result of another's actions. Some of those interviewed had the satisfaction, of seeing the perpetrator punished for their actions, and some not. If you could really get into the heads of those bereaved, I wonder what you would find? The former found closure and able to go on with a sense of fulfilment, and the latter not? I sincerely think no.

The desire for revenge is barbarism and we should try our best to nullify it. The desire for revenge, perhaps, is that which drives the people of the USA to an alarming degree. So incarceration rates are twice as high as in any other country, the death penalty retained, and correctional efforts a joke. Recidivism is a given. Some Scandinavian countries are the opposite.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by theprestige

It's only a pity if we can get any closer to the ideal.

It'sa pity if we can't get any closer to the ideal. More so if there is a better model but its implementation is thwarted by the legal system.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by psionl0

It'sa pity if we can't get any closer to the ideal. More so if there is a better model but its implementation is thwarted by the legal system.

I don't see why it's sad that we're getting as close to the ideal as possible. If we could get closer but don't, that would be sad.

Do you think there is a better model? If so, what is it?

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Thor 2

I would be interesting to conduct a survey of people, who were bereaved as the result of another's actions. Some of those interviewed had the satisfaction, of seeing the perpetrator punished for their actions, and some not. If you could really get into the heads of those bereaved, I wonder what you would find? The former found closure and able to go on with a sense of fulfilment, and the latter not? I sincerely think no.

The desire for revenge is barbarism and we should try our best to nullify it. The desire for revenge, perhaps, is that which drives the people of the USA to an alarming degree. So incarceration rates are twice as high as in any other country, the death penalty retained, and correctional efforts a joke. Recidivism is a given. Some Scandinavian countries are the opposite.

Well, different cultures have different ways of thinking. I often think of the Asian countries as being particularly harsh. The Arab countries too. OTOH, for certain heinous crimes, the USA can be too lenient and for other more petty crimes, too harsh (and, of course, too much depends on one’s socioeconomic status and race). Scandinavian countries are much too lenient, in my view. When someone like Anders Breivik is sentenced to 10 years and can be let out if deemed no longer a danger, I think that’s a problem. I’m not a huge death penalty proponent but I do believe there are some crimes where it’s warranted. At the very least, murder on the scale committed by Breivik deserves nothing less than life in prison. Those kids he murdered ... their lives counted for something. Their parents will never get them back. What kind of justice -in the sense of making things right- would it be if he gets to live a free life after taking the life of so many others? If he were ever released, I think it would even piss off quite a few Norwegians.

Even so, I think most people are satisfied that the Justice system works, for the most part. As “barbaric” as you might think attitudes around crime and punishment are in the US, consider OJ Simpson. Most of us think he did it and the justice system failed miserably, but he is able to live relatively freely (if he hadn’t have messed up again) after his infamous exoneration. I don’t know, if I were the family of the victims, that I would have such restraint, but society as a whole has basically shrugged its shoulders and said, “oh well.”

[Hlafordlaes]

Fair is giving me a grape to reward my cooperation just like you gave the monkey in the cage next to me. **** cucumbers!
- Cap Puchino

[Tommok]

Originally Posted by jrhowell

Before the creation of formal justice systems the fear of revenge was a big part of keeping people in line. I believe that it is a fundamental part of human nature. It is hard to move beyond that.

Well, it's the fear of punishment rather than revenge that should keep people in line today. Revenge, and acting on it, should not be the basis of our judicial system at all.

Actually different countries have different approaches here. In Germany, for example, the courts keep pointing out that no harmed person has any say in the determination of the punishment of the bad guy. They always appear as witnesses, never as prosecuting agents. Of course, civil compensation may be required, but the punishment is never intended to work in the interest of the injured party, but rather in the interest of society as a whole.

I understand that other countries have different approaches, which may serve to justify atrocities like capital punishment. However I don't think society is best served by that approach.

[xjx388]

Originally Posted by Tommok

Well, it's the fear of punishment rather than revenge that should keep people in line today. Revenge, and acting on it, should not be the basis of our judicial system at all.

Actually different countries have different approaches here. In Germany, for example, the courts keep pointing out that no harmed person has any say in the determination of the punishment of the bad guy. They always appear as witnesses, never as prosecuting agents. Of course, civil compensation may be required, but the punishment is never intended to work in the interest of the injured party, but rather in the interest of society as a whole.

I understand that other countries have different approaches, which may serve to justify atrocities like capital punishment. However I don't think society is best served by that approach.

It’s no different in the US. Here we allow victims and their families to testify at sentencing, for example, but their testimony might have some bearing on the sentence but in no way is the sole determinant.

Anyway, I think there may be some confusion as to exactly what I’m saying. Yes, retribution and the desire for personal revenge is a fundamental part of human psychology but in the modern world, this desire has been sublimated by the Justice System. When I say “sublimated” I mean it in the psychological sense: a basic instinct that is made socially unacceptable and then diverted into an socially acceptable activity.

So most of us suppress our instincts and let the State act in our stead because we don’t want to be punished by the State ourselves.

Absent an effective Justice System, we would not have an outlet for our desire for retribution and might seek it out personally. IOW, the Justice System serves as an outlet for our retributive desires, turning them into something more positive for the society as a whole. That’s the base of what Justice is all about.

[theprestige]

My view of this is that a society tends to go off the rails when everyone gets to apply their own personal retribution. And a society tends to go off the rails when it doesn't seem like there's any real retribution being applied by anybody - or at least not being applied equally to everybody. The reasonable middle ground, that keeps societies relatively peaceful and productive, is a consensus approach to retribution through a relatively dispassionate process. It doesn't privilege any one victim's desire for revenge. It doesn't necessarily satisfy every citizen's desire for just retribution in every case. But it works better, almost all the time, than the more extreme alternatives.

And yes, I do think justice is about retribution, and should be.

[Thor 2]

Originally Posted by Tommok

Well, it's the fear of punishment rather than revenge that should keep people in line today. Revenge, and acting on it, should not be the basis of our judicial system at all.

Actually different countries have different approaches here. In Germany, for example, the courts keep pointing out that no harmed person has any say in the determination of the punishment of the bad guy. They always appear as witnesses, never as prosecuting agents. Of course, civil compensation may be required, but the punishment is never intended to work in the interest of the injured party, but rather in the interest of society as a whole.

I understand that other countries have different approaches, which may serve to justify atrocities like capital punishment. However I don't think society is best served by that approach.

You seem to have a similar take on this to myself Tommok.

Capital Punishment is an atrocity as you say and most of the civilised world have come to this realisation.

Punishment in general need not be the only motive in determining sentences. It may help society by discouraging transgression and by keeping someone, who is a threat to others, locked up. Perhaps the latter should be given more consideration. We often hear of a villain being released when still a threat, and lo and behold, they go and injure or kill again.

[Dr. Keith]

Originally Posted by theprestige

My view of this is that a society tends to go off the rails when everyone gets to apply their own personal retribution. And a society tends to go off the rails when it doesn't seem like there's any real retribution being applied by anybody - or at least not being applied equally to everybody. The reasonable middle ground, that keeps societies relatively peaceful and productive, is a consensus approach to retribution through a relatively dispassionate process. It doesn't privilege any one victim's desire for revenge. It doesn't necessarily satisfy every citizen's desire for just retribution in every case. But it works better, almost all the time, than the more extreme alternatives.

I think that is the framework most of us feel like we are working within. Not wanting to tear down the system, but trying to show problems where equality is not evident.

Quote:

And yes, I do think justice is about retribution, and should be.

Maybe it is just a reframing of retribution, but I feel like there is a strong desire for people to be "held accountable" for their actions. Financial accountability is pretty simple, but non-financial accountability is much harder.

I remember hearing a podcast years ago where researchers found that when doctor's admitted to their mistakes the medical malpractice plaintiff's were less aggressive and it typically saved the doctors and their insurers money. This is quite contrary to all legal advice in the US relating to liability, but apparently some hospitals took this approach and saw positive financial outcomes as a result. Also, the plaintiff's were more satisfied. IIRC, the sentiment was along the lines of: The money will never correct what I lost, but hearing the doctor admit to their error gave some sense of closure.

Obviously, that is typically outside of the criminal realm, but I feel like there is a parallel where the victims of a crime want more than just punishment, they want some understanding and acknowledgment of wrongdoing from the criminal. Not that this is the whole thing, but that it is an important part of the thing.

I guess this is most often portrayed as the parole board looking for contrition before granting parole. Which always looks stupid, whether it is an Ocean's movie or The Shawshank Redemption. That our legal system further punishes those who admit to any culpability is a bit silly and just makes it harder for victims and their families to reach for this sort retribution. This accountability?

[Thor 2]

I read that involved sentencing hearings are becoming more common. These can involve victim impact statements:

Quote:

Victim Impact Statements

With sentences increasingly reflecting the impact of crimes on victims’ lives, a crime victim might seek assistance from a friend or counselor when writing an impact statement. Statements may touch on the physical, emotional, and financial effects of crimes. For example, how did a crime change the victim’s daily life or general lifestyle? How did the crime affect relationships with family members and friends? What medical or psychological treatment has a crime necessitated?

I find this disturbing because it should be the severity of the crime we should be focusing on, not the severity of the impact.

If we look at the example I gave above where the woman crashed into the fence while trying to save her cakes.

In the hypothetical situation where she killed someone as a result of her poor driving, she could be faced with a charge of manslaughter and find herself in jail, although the crime would not have been any more severe, than if she had just smashed the fence. If she was a decent person the knowledge that she had killed someone would be significant punishment itself.

Moving into the non hypothetical, there are many who have been severely punished, when they have hurt or injured others, whilst "driving under the influence". If they are pulled over by the cops and found to be committing this same crime, they are just fined and may lose points on their licence.

In countries like Sweden they have a much better perspective. Get caught drink driving and you go straight into the slammer.

[ServiceSoon]

Originally Posted by theprestige

So what's your definition of justice? Or do you not have one because society hasn't told you what to think?

I provided the definition of justice as it exist in practice/reality. I think your question is, what would I like the definition of justice to be. I'd go with, Justice is the failure for all interested parties to achieve their individual/collective moral/ethical expectations at the culmination of their dealings.

Originally Posted by xjx388

Justice means to make things right.

In a society, a justice system is essential. You can’t have individuals getting justice for themselves -that’s just anarchy. No, you need a neutral party to look at each case and decide 1)If there was a wrong that needs to be righted and 2)how best to make that wrong right.

A justice system sublimates the base human instinct for revenge.

Isn't that how our system currently functions? The most meaningful addition to your depiction of justice is that we have written laws so that the neutral parties (Judges) know what corrective action is customary. I recently learned that Judges can do whatever they want, they do NOT have to follow what the law describes as appropriate.

Originally Posted by p0lka

Justice is when the aggrieved feel ok with the balance of the result.

If that is how our justice system was designed, it would result in an unequal amount of justice being applied on the aggregate. Here is a simple example of that occurring:

Jill punches Albert. Albert demands an apology. Jill apologizes.

John punches Phil. Phil demands $500 as payment. John pays Phil.

According to your definition, Justice was served in both scenarios, however, equality of outcome doesn't not exist.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

I'd go with, Justice is the failure for all interested parties to achieve their individual/collective moral/ethical expectations at the culmination of their dealings.

I don't understand what this means. At all.

[theprestige]

I invite anyone who thinks that justice isn't about retribution to skim the Gamestop stock manipulation threads.

[Myriad]

Justice is frozen water in its purest form.

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by Myriad

Justice is frozen water in its purest form.

LOL.

[HoverBoarder]

Originally Posted by angrysoba

People have disagreed over what justice is for millenia. Or maybe longer.

Some researchers have argued that a sense of justice is a kind of heuristic that humans (and other primates) have evolved to maintain group cohesion.

But does that map onto society as a whole?

Can there be a truly coherent system of justice?

What should the state's role in administering justice be?

Do theories of justice stemming from retribution, protection of society, deterrence or rehabilitation have the strongest claim as an organizing principle of justice systems around the world?

Please argue your pants off...

Originally Posted by ServiceSoon

A definitive definition of Justice is fleeting because it has been changed throughout history. This implies that Justice is a social construct; that means society decides what its definition should mean.

There have been examples that have already been posted in this thread that engender this as true. Another example is the contrasting ideas of Equality Under the Law with Equality of Outcome. Both have usefulness in making value judgments.

This is exactly right. Specifically, the culminative feeling of justice from the people living in a society is a direct reflection on the effectiveness, fairness, and viability of that society at a given time and place. In many ways the Justice of a specific society is an indicator of that Societies health and viability. The laws, rules, and norms, reflect the social contract of that society. If enough people agree to follow those rules, than there will be a viable society as long as other economic, military, or environmental factors do not prevent its existence. The collective determination of justice in Society represents a public's desire to continue or null that societies social contract. If enough people decide that their society is unjust, that could be a good indication that the Society will face an upheaval.

The important thing to remember is that Justice is an idea, not an action. You can incarcerate someone under a societies 'Justice System,' but it is the feeling that the action produces that determines peoples sense of justice. You can change a person's view of justice in society through propaganda, or controlling the flow of information just as much as it can change through the physical implementation of laws, enforcement, or personal action. For instance, consider the concentration camps in China and North Korea. While many of the people in normal incarceration systems ended up there by knowingly violating the rules and laws of a society, most of the people in these concentration camps ended up there through no discrete determinate action of their own. A person's sense of justice in those situations would absolutely depend on whether you were placed in a concentration camp or not, and could be directly controlled through the control of information and use of Nationalistic propaganda.

Everyone has different life experiences, and those differences cause us to feel different impacts from our societies justice system. To my knowledge, there has never been a Society that has been set up to have completely equal and fair System of Justice for all of the people in its Society. From the governing body of Communist Countries, to the Plutacrocy governments of the Socialist based Capitalist Countries of most of the world today, all Societies have unequal levels of justice built into their very structure. One could argue that there never has been a successful society that had predominately equal levels of justice for its citizens, and it may not even be possible. A counter argument of course is that there are enough vested interests from preventing a much more equal Society to form in the first place, and that the viability is unknown because of that.

So you can absolutely define Justice. Individually there are billions of different definitions of what justice means to specific people, and how they feel it is being implemented in a Society. Collectively, Justice is the determination of the effectiveness and equity of a societies governance and control of the actions of people towards each other. Retribution, protection, and deterrence all play a role in that, but the important thing is that the general social contract of behavior of society that people feel is either worth supporting and following and is therefore mostly Just, or it is not and is therefore mostly unjust.

[Nay_Sayer]

https://cloudfront-us-east-1.images....QH42FUJTVE.jpg

A clothing store for young girls.

[HoverBoarder]

Justice is important as a measure of the effectiveness of a fair, open, and functional society. In the future I think that societies will have to evolve and change much faster in order to combat inefficiencies. In order to do that, I think many factors will have to be measured fairly regularly. Ideally including a public perception of justice.