Justice: Is it really worth it?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I think justice is important.

I think it is a romantic notion,but irrelevant in daily life. Life is not just.

It reminds us that actions have consequences and thus keeps society functioning as best as it can

.Justice has nothing to do with the functioning of society. Order is maintained by rule of law, backed by raw power.(violence, explicit or implied)

People obey laws through self interest, which may include a fear of punishment.However, I think our prisons show just how effective is fear of punishment as a deterrent.

[FallentoReason]

I think justice is important.

I think it is a romantic notion,but irrelevant in daily life. Life is not just.

It reminds us that actions have consequences and thus keeps society functioning as best as it can

.Justice has nothing to do with the functioning of society. Order is maintained by rule of law, backed by raw power.(violence, explicit or implied)

People obey laws through self interest, which may include a fear of punishment.However, I think our prisons show just how effective is fear of punishment as a deterrent.

And how were punishments drawn up? Depending on the type of crime right? Isn't it just to say a murderer gets more time behind bars than a bank robber?

[Whateverist]

I choose the rule of law over the rule of the strong. I hope that the laws will be just, that they will be enforced uniformly but sensibly, and that they will be amended until we are satisfied with them.

[frankiej]

Polaris, considering you have the Punisher symbol as your avatar I think we like the same kind of justice.

Although, you are a Christian, so I doubt you are all for the brutal teachings of the Punisher.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Isn't it just to say a murderer gets more time behind bars than a bank robber?

That depends on your notion of 'justice' . Not every action fits into a neat little box,and the rich tend to be more lightly treated under most legal systems than the poor..To be just,(fair) the law must be impartial and consistent; it is neither. Until that time, justice remains a romantic ideal.


Traditionally, crimes against property have been treated at least as harshly as crimes against the person. This practice has changed only in the last 100 years and less.


The earliest notions of justice of which I'm aware come from ancient Egypt. The basic principle was called m'aat, which means order/balance. The emphasis was on restoring order,often through compensation. The notion of justice through compensation is common in the Code of Hammurabi,which developed (?) into the 613 commandments called 'Mosaic Law",which also emphasis compensation.

[Mystic]

Isn't it just to say a murderer gets more time behind bars than a bank robber?

In principle,of course.However, you have given an ideal,which is actually meaningless in practice.. Not every action fits into a neat little box,and the rich tend to be more lightly treated under most legal systems than the poor..

To be just,(fair) the law must be impartial and consistent; it is neither. Until that time, justice remains a romantic ideal.

I have to agree with you here.

In fact, the belief in justice was one factor why I believed in shiite Islam.

I believed two things: Justice and implementation of it can only come from God, and must be enforced by infallible Godly appointed leader.

All Messengers came so that humanity rises up for justice. Ultimately, the Mahdi World Government was the goal of all Prophets.

Until the Mahdi, perfect justice would not be implemented.

I don't know where to begin with justice now and the implementation of it.

Things were rather very simple and ideal when I believe in my religion.

I believed we had to try to implement the laws of God per revelation.

Now it's all up to the minds of a few elite in society. And we are suppose to take the laws of fallible judges as wise rulings to be obeyed blindly?

Are we suppose to trust authority?

Whom is worthy of leadership and whom isn't....all this is all too complicated.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

@Mystic; sorry, had a little think and felt obliged to edit my post to more honestly reflect my position.

[Reforged]

The reasons why the capture of Saddam was finally attempted are very different from the reasons that it should of been attempted.
Also some of the conduct has been highly questionable. There are classified documents from wikileaks detailing some of this conduct, most of it extremely shocking. You expect casualties but you do not expect them to take, for one example, the form of a six year old childs face being caved in with a breeze block by the local authorities and the military failing to take any action because of orders they should let them do what they want as long as it did not interfere with their operation.
Or for another a car being puiled over at a military blockade, two passengers getting out hands up and then being riddled with bullets. Their four children survived, blood of their parents fresh on their faces and clothes. One of them was paralysed from the waist down from a stray round. Those responsible got a free pass, The family were compensated and the whole thing swept under the rug. There are many other known classified documents detailing such events, makes you wonder how many weren't discovered at all.
All the more shocking is that many who had committed similar atrocities were given the same treatment. I'm not saying that all soilders were guilty of such conduct but at least afew were and this is how command chose to deal with them. It really says something when you see the statistic that 80% of all the casualties were civilians. In a situation where you're fighting an enemy using guerilla tactics alot of civilian casualties would be understandable but not quite on that scale. Their lives were simply not valued.

Anyway, my point is the war is a poor example. The war needed to be fought, Saddam needed to be taken out but not for the reasons that he was and certainly not with the methods that were used. If you want an example of justice you'd be better off with something else.

[FemmeRealism]

Take into consideration what we know and can do: Justice, in my eyes as an atheist, may only be carried out while we are mortally alive. Thus it must be carried out by humans, IE humans must punish our fellow humans for wrong doings and negative actions. Humans are very flawed, thus has our sense of justice and punishment is flawed. Over time our society has made justice and consequense severly biased. It is for this reason that I believe our civilization's justice system excists primarily to prevent wrong doings through inimidantion and secondarily to punish. It's effective, yet not as effective as it could be.