Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
There is no such thing as "justice"
zenff
Veteran
There’s no such thing as justice, imho.
It is a crazy concept, but it fits some basic wiring in our brain.
This wiring probably was established when – being social primates – we would beat up the monkey who stole the banana.
It kind of worked, but only in those conditions.
It doesn’t mean such a thing as “justice” exists in our universe.
Also it isn’t necessarily the right approach to managing a complex modern society.
It is a crazy concept, but it fits some basic wiring in our brain.
This wiring probably was established when – being social primates – we would beat up the monkey who stole the banana.
It kind of worked, but only in those conditions.
It doesn’t mean such a thing as “justice” exists in our universe.
Also it isn’t necessarily the right approach to managing a complex modern society.
0
Comments
What do we do if there's no such thing as justice, then? What do you propose in place of the (obsolete?) mechanisms of justice that are now in use?
(This isn't a Current Events topic. General Banter.)
Killing a famous terrorist can make sense for many reasons, but “justice” isn’t one of them.
Why is there no such thing as justice? And what do we do, if there isn't? What do we substitute the justice system with?
First of all we would actually have to think about the causes of – in this case – islamist terrorism. And we would have to think of ways to remove these causes.
It would be much harder than pinpointing and killing a demonic character.
In societies, I believe, some sort of coherence helps. Many crimes move along lines of division in society. Division between rich and poor, black and white, catholic and protestant.
In the most simple form: If you hit someone in a fit of rage and that person has to go to the hospital. When you are forced to pay for his treatment...that to me is justice.
If you kill someone because you were in an argument and you go to jail. That to me is justice.
Now as far as how long and conditions of incarceration is all debatable.
On the level of crime within nations, cities, neighborhoods, the root causes would have to be addressed as well. Functional education for all, end to job discrimination, end to child abuse. Too much money is tied up in wars.
What about Canada? It's not involved in wars, but is there discrimination? Child abuse? Education of the same quality available to all? Where is the money being spent, that would otherwise go to the military? Going to the health system?
If our conditions are determined by those who come before us, but then again our predecessors' conditions determined by those who came before them... there is no beginning in sight. There is no one to blame, or to praise, as this interconnected and temporary existence is dependent upon the conditioning before and now acting upon not-self phenomena.
If someone kills our mother, we might think it justice to kill them back, but this is contrived. We all die; the only reason we're here at all is because our parents either didn't use protection or were clinging to life and had that urge to procreate. The only reason we continue on is clinging to life, though it's trying to grasp the air... sure we can continue the species, but really why do we do that? We automatically think it's good for the species to survive and a horrible idea if it didn't. Why is that? What is the root of our thinking that? I'm not saying the species should die out, but... really why not? It's something to think about. It'll knock your sense of self for a loop.
Notions of justice can change in time and place.
It was at some point in time in Europe “justice” to burn witches and heretics.
In ancient Rome it was “justice” when you killed someone else’s slave that you pay his owner some money for compensation.
So which "justice" is the real “justice”?
re: "if someone kills our mother..." It's not justice to kill someone in revenge. Justice is bringing the murderer to trial.
Many environmentalists don't think it's good for our species to survive. And it may well die out, which isn't a big deal, is it?
and yes at a time where slaves were property, if you destroyed property you were responsible to make it right. Of course I believe we have come to understand that the injustice began in treating any person as property. A realization of a deeper understanding of justice itself.
Justice is about fairness. Its our best attempt at fairness and its a great thing. It is a great concept that has served us well.
A pretty simple and imo pretty sound definition of justice.
Yes, it definitely is complex.
The USSR – at the other hand – was not the ideal social experiment; maybe that was just the image they wanted to create in their propaganda.
Japan traditionally is a country with low crime rates and a relatively soft penal system.
The explanation - what I read about it – is to be found in cultural values and social homogeneity. Also it could be related to the way young children are treated. Children in their early years get an overload of attention and care. This – apparently – helps them to be social and reasonable people when they grow up.
But, it is complex; Japanese soldiers did commit war-crimes in WW2.
Like all soldiers they went berserk when they were taken out of their safe and structured environment and were put in the bizarre situations of a war-zone.
"William Roper: “So now you’d give the Devil the benefit of law!”
Sir Thomas More: “Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get to the Devil?”
Roper: “I’d cut down every law in England to do that!”
More: “Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you -- where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat. This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast -- man’s laws, not God’s -- and if you cut them down -- and you’re just the man to do it -- do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of the law, for my own safety’s sake.”
But in this logic very cruel things can be “just”, provided they are democratically sanctioned and follow a rule which is applied to “equal cases”.
Can I think of something weird?
Sure.
All people who are born disabled (we have to carefully define the equal cases here) are to be killed instantly. I believe such was the rule in ancient Sparta.
If we find a democratic majority for it; do you really think it is “justice”?
I don’t.
That doesn’t imply that there’s something inherently “just” about this legal system in particular or in legal systems in general.
Laws and punishments are tools we have. They are supposed to keep society orderly.
At some levels this tool kind of works, and at other levels it doesn’t work at all.
In such cases – where it doesn’t work at all – it gives us a false idea of closure.
Punishment often does not solve a single thing. The crime is not repaired.
When there are roots and causes for such crimes in society; they are not removed.
I can translate the words “justice” and “law” in your sentence with the same word “recht”.
“Justice” (rechtvaardigeid) is some kind of cosmic fairness.
“Law” (het recht) would be the attempt to capture basic notions of justice in detailed laws and jurisprudence.
Is that what you are saying?
The subtle point I’m trying to make is that “Justice” is a fabrication and “Law” is a random product of society.
Instead of doing “Justice” we should be solving problems in society.
In doing so compassion is a better inspiration for us than a false idea of cosmic fairness.
As Zenff says, there may be a language barrier. "Justice" I translate as "retfærdighed" meaning something like "following the right course of the law", but the meaning is deeper than just "according to law". In our legal system it can be boiled down to "according to law in the same way in every case which are alike". I know it is the way justice is practiced because it was one of the first things we learned at Law School.. It would still be just because all of the same kind was treated in the same way according to a law. Cruel and undesirable - of course. But the Courts of Law do not create law (in the US they do, but not here), they just use the scales and swing the sword. What the sovereign people decides is how things should be - cruel or not. It's not even a democratic idea, it's the foundation of the world. Our societies will never be more or less than what the people in them decide them to be; through actions. There is no right or wrong, only cause and effect.
Having abandoned "natural law" (cosmic fairness) and through principles of law (founded in experience with what works in balancing out parts) gone beyond mere "positive law", the most covering definition of justice is thus how I described and hence the one used now. In the legal world, that is..
We can always argue what "fairness" is - is it fair or not, that the thief is being hung for stealing an apple?
We have to go way, way back to find laws based on the notions of some ruling class, where some aristocrat pointed a wet finger in the air and "felt" how God wanted things to be for all people. And good the same
warmly
Justice is a difficult concept, though many seem to think it's quite simple. There are traditionally reasons which -in theory- justify punishment.
--preventing others from doing such things (gen'l prevention)
--preventing the perp from reoffending (special prevention)
--simple revenge (the state takes revenge out of the hands of victimes & their relatives to prevent anarchy)
The question is: does this work in real life? Many don't return from penal institutions rehabilitated. And many crimes are committed without consideration of possible punishment: crimes of passion, for example. Further, computer games on "prison dilemma" situations show that some sort of "tit for tat" response to crime does act as a deterrent.
The “blaming‘ side to punishment is really the problematic thing.
What can people do about the way their brain works in certain conditions?
I understand some type of brains simply do not have the application “conscience” installed. Who is to blame for that?
Also when a poor person turns to crime, a lot of people will defend him and say its not his fault because he did not have the education and all that, which I agree with but he is still responsible for commiting the crime. I also think you take away from the dignity of people who are poor and dont take the easy path of crime and instead do the best with what they have.
You see it as blaming I see it as forcing responsibility.
I'm sorry I missed the thread on the war crime trial. I'll just say this: the international community has agreed that certain crimes are so heinous, that there should be no statute of limitations on them. So this sometimes results in an extreme case such as the one CW cited. How a bedridden criminal would serve out a prison sentence, I don't know. I like Ric's definition of justice as fairness. I guess sometimes it takes 60 years for the "fairness" to come to fruition. :-/
When a kid did something serious enough to be sent to my office -- which meant the possibility of suspension or worse, my policy was LDA -- least drastic action. What did I have to do to make sure the kid stopped doing it, and set an example of school policy?
To me, that's how I define justice. What does society have to do to assure that people stop doing things our society does not believe are appropriate. Rarely do we need an eye for an eye, but we do need consequences that stop inappropriate behavior for those who cannot control themselves.
This re-opens the question of what causes crime in the first place? zenff posted early on that a more just society (jobs for all those who could work, and support for the disabled, housing for all, etc.) would eliminate the need for criminal "justice". I still maintain that this oversimplifies the picture. (My comment re: the USSR, BTW, came from living there as a student and observing, not from propaganda.) If everyone's material needs were met, there would still be crime. Why? Because there would still be child abuse and other social problems that lead to crime, there would be disturbed people for any number of root causes. Why do some children steal? It's usually due to emotional issues, not economic circumstances. The causes of crime are complex.
On the other end are what I'll refer to as hardcore criminals. I honestly believe that some of them (such as some gang members) cannot be rehabilitated. How you would determine that, I don't know...but I would guess it might be based on recidivism.
All those people in between those two extremes, probably can be rehabilitated. And should be.
But to be honest, there's another problem ex-cons face...sometimes fairly, and sometimes not. Prejudism by society. I had a nephew who went to prison...I honestly don't know why...probably drugs. He served 2 years in a medium-security prison. Getting a job has been done mostly through being dishonest on resumes. And when that dishonesty is discovered, he's fired anyway. Finally, he's kept a job by finding a gay lover who owned a restaurant (he's a cook). The idea we used to have in this country, that when you've served your time you're a free man...well, that's not really true anymore.
One place ex-cons can get jobs is with moving companies, I've noticed. But it's not steady work; they work as independent contractors, no benefits, no guaranteed hours, but it's a place to start, at least. There are compassionate employers here and there who are open to giving ex-cons a fresh start, but not enough such people, that's for sure. Best of luck to your nephew.
I'm not sure it was ever true that once you've served your time, you're a free man, and are free to work wherever you want. Maybe a system of agencies specializing in job placement for ex-cons is needed.
I'm sure people have lots of good ideas for addressing the issues that have come up. In the end, it boils down to political will, and funding priorities on the part of federal and local governments. Too bad Bush trashed the US economy.
Some people seem to confuse justice with vengeance. They want the punishment to provide them satisfaction rather than have it fit the crime.
There is when people take "revenge" and start calling it "justice" instead.