The illusion of justice

[DanTrentfield]

Let's face it, our world today is flooded by a generation of people that put justice before anything in their lives and are allergic to any sense of normalcy, but the fact of the matter is the 'justice' they seek is an illusion. Justice is an abstract concept conceived by man to judge what is right and what is wrong, however justice in this sense always harms someone somewhere because they did nothing wrong but they are not in accordance of what the group that has the most power in society thinks. This is exactly why the power to make and levy laws based on 'right, and wrong according to justice' needs to be destroyed, and why justice itself needs to be redefined entirely. So to start this process lets begin defining what the legal version of justice is: Fair settlement based on the standards of society with the intention of attempting to compensate for damage of some form. Why does this need to be the way that things work? Because it functions. If we're debating every day whether inmate 04071 is guilty or innocent of his crime because he was crying when arrested and picked up the toy rabbit of the girl he molested and gave it back to her instead of giving him the legally agreed sentence we open ourselves to influence from any single group that wants to push any agenda. For example, because I decry the illusion of 'justice' as it is I should be hanged and quartered  according to some groups, and if they held power to change these laws I would be. 

 

So lets change how the word justice is defined: A fair settlement in attempt to compensate for damages done by any single one party, with punishment carried out to discourage any other party from committing the same crime. 

 

If this is the definition of justice then we are protected from groups that wish to eliminate free speech and other basic rights in order to promote 'justice' because their justice is: A not a fair settlement as it is to push an agenda, B does damage, does not compensate for it, C carries out a punishment based on accusation rather than crime. 

 

So if we redefine justice as this then it is what it should be: A standard by which all are held based on the dream a society wishes to realize, with said standard being set by the first people of a society who found it.

 

And to top off the cake let me compare the heated climate of today to a statement made by the notorious minister of propaganda of the Nazi Party, Joseph Goebbels: "Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty." 

Edited January 15, 2018 by DanTrentfield

[Phi for All]

All the individual rants aside, I'm not sure you can fairly redefine justice until you have a system that defends human rights equitably. Why start with justice when there might be a way to remove the need for many crimes in the first place? If the US took better care of it's citizens through effective social programs, a lot of the justice system becomes unnecessary.

You also have to define what a human right is. Personally, I think the accumulated human knowledge taught in schools and universities should be everyone's by right. This honors the efforts of those who came before us to help benefit mankind using the resources for research provided by all of us. If we all have free access to education, it then seems more reasonable to hold all of us accountable to a redefined system of justice. 

Justice is an illusion when it's so contaminated by profit interests. The whole bail system seems more designed to make money off the most desperate citizens than to dispense justice. Read about the practices of private prisons and you can plainly see it's about keeping as many quiet guests as the state can pay for (at higher expense), for as long as you can get away with it. Worse, they funnel millions into political campaigns (like Marco Rubio's) seeking to increase sentence lengths, implement three strike laws, and other legislation which hasn't proven to deter crime or help the legal system; it simply makes more money.

[DanTrentfield]

19 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

All the individual rants aside, I'm not sure you can fairly redefine justice until you have a system that defends human rights equitably. Why start with justice when there might be a way to remove the need for many crimes in the first place? If the US took better care of it's citizens through effective social programs, a lot of the justice system becomes unnecessary.

You also have to define what a human right is. Personally, I think the accumulated human knowledge taught in schools and universities should be everyone's by right. This honors the efforts of those who came before us to help benefit mankind using the resources for research provided by all of us. If we all have free access to education, it then seems more reasonable to hold all of us accountable to a redefined system of justice. 

Justice is an illusion when it's so contaminated by profit interests. The whole bail system seems more designed to make money off the most desperate citizens than to dispense justice. Read about the practices of private prisons and you can plainly see it's about keeping as many quiet guests as the state can pay for (at higher expense), for as long as you can get away with it. Worse, they funnel millions into political campaigns (like Marco Rubio's) seeking to increase sentence lengths, implement three strike laws, and other legislation which hasn't proven to deter crime or help the legal system; it simply makes more money.

Yes, but cut it down to it's base form: A system of standards established by a society for the benefit of all, and include in that wording the inclusion of education and basic human rights.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

but the fact of the matter is the 'justice' they seek is an illusion.

I can agree with this statement to some degree.

In ancient times there was rule "there is no crime without a victim".

Now there is plentiful of such silly laws.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime

Starting from possession of insignificant amount of drugs for personal use (or voluntary prostitution). I don't recommend (or promote!) narcotics. I can understand that person after taking some of them may lose perception of this world (by law they are put in the same group, regardless of how they change perception), and under influence do some the real crimes. But narcotics addicted person requires healing instead of going to jail.. After prison, with criminal record, won't be able to get normal job, unable to pay for rent, will lose house/apartment, etc. etc. and it'll turn him/her to full-time narcotic dealer and abuser, at accelerated rate.

 

Edited January 15, 2018 by Sensei

[Ten oz]

1 hour ago, DanTrentfield said:

Justice is an abstract concept conceived by man to judge what is right and what is wrong, however justice in this sense always harms someone somewhere because they did nothing wrong but they are not in accordance of what the group that has the most power in society thinks.

Laws do not fall from the sky. Often those in power attempt to deify laws in an attempt to maintain the status quo. The Constitution for example gets treated with religious scale reverence and our founding fathers are view as perfection incarnate. Reality is laws are made by humans. Laws are can be poorly designed, ill conceived, burdensome, or cruel. Society should always be willing to reconsider and change laws. None should ever be deified. 

 

1 hour ago, DanTrentfield said:

So to start this process lets begin defining what the legal version of justice is: Fair settlement based on the standards of society with the intention of attempting to compensate for damage of some form. Why does this need to be the way that things work?

 This may have made more sense in philosophy. There is not a pointed political position here. Perhaps something in the subtext be nothing clear. 

 

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

If we're debating every day whether inmate 04071 is guilty or innocent of his crime because he was crying when arrested and picked up the toy rabbit of the girl he molested and gave it back to her instead of giving him the legally agreed sentence we open ourselves to influence from any single group that wants to push any agenda. For example, because I decry the illusion of 'justice' as it is I should be hanged and quartered  according to some groups, and if they held power to change these laws I would be. 

Philosophical I think retribution, revenge, punishment,  justice, and etc are all selfishly flawed ways at finding catharsis following victimization. Justice is impossible. In WW2 the Nazi's were stopped but was that just for all those who had been killed? Did the Emancipation  Proclamation provide justice for all those who had already died? Wrongs never can be reversed. Arresting a rapists and imprisoning them doesn't repair the emotional and physical damages imposed on their victims.  In my opinion viewing the execution of law as means of dulling out justice is an error. At best laws simply protect us. When evaluating crime protecting society should be the primary focus and not avenging those who have been wrong. Only people who pose a threat to society should be placed in jail and only those things which endanger society should be outlawed. 

 

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

So lets change how the word justice is defined: A fair settlement in attempt to compensate for damages done by any single one party, with punishment carried out to discourage any other party from committing the same crime

One can seldom ever be compensate for damages. My stolen car can be returned but the psychological impact of it being stolen in the first place will always remain. Tit for tat punishments resolve nothing. 

 

2 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

If this is the definition of justice then we are protected from groups that wish to eliminate free speech and other basic rights in order to promote 'justice' because their justice is: A not a fair settlement as it is to push an agenda, B does damage, does not compensate for it, C carries out a punishment based on accusation rather than crime. 

Things like free speech at worst are only an inconvenience to those who disagree with the speech. If we exclusively view law through the filter of safety physical (person/environment/property) speech does threaten anything and no law should restrict it. Things like protests potentially could damage the environment or property by overwhelming infrastructure so it makes sense laws would restrict them.

[EdEarl]

Before men established property laws, every being was allowed to gather or hunt food, and allowed to try to survive and thrive. Laws that cause people to suffer are unjust laws.

[DanTrentfield]

4 hours ago, Ten oz said:

Laws do not fall from the sky. Often those in power attempt to deify laws in an attempt to maintain the status quo. The Constitution for example gets treated with religious scale reverence and our founding fathers are view as perfection incarnate. Reality is laws are made by humans. Laws are can be poorly designed, ill conceived, burdensome, or cruel. Society should always be willing to reconsider and change laws. None should ever be deified. 

 

 This may have made more sense in philosophy. There is not a pointed political position here. Perhaps something in the subtext be nothing clear. 

 

Philosophical I think retribution, revenge, punishment,  justice, and etc are all selfishly flawed ways at finding catharsis following victimization. Justice is impossible. In WW2 the Nazi's were stopped but was that just for all those who had been killed? Did the Emancipation  Proclamation provide justice for all those who had already died? Wrongs never can be reversed. Arresting a rapists and imprisoning them doesn't repair the emotional and physical damages imposed on their victims.  In my opinion viewing the execution of law as means of dulling out justice is an error. At best laws simply protect us. When evaluating crime protecting society should be the primary focus and not avenging those who have been wrong. Only people who pose a threat to society should be placed in jail and only those things which endanger society should be outlawed. 

 

One can seldom ever be compensate for damages. My stolen car can be returned but the psychological impact of it being stolen in the first place will always remain. Tit for tat punishments resolve nothing. 

 

Things like free speech at worst are only an inconvenience to those who disagree with the speech. If we exclusively view law through the filter of safety physical (person/environment/property) speech does threaten anything and no law should restrict it. Things like protests potentially could damage the environment or property by overwhelming infrastructure so it makes sense laws would restrict them.

But firmly enforcing laws allows for harmony. Any real justice is truly impossible, but we can discourage wrongdoing through firm enforcement of laws and making laws based on the principles I stated. 

[Ten oz]

8 hours ago, DanTrentfield said:

But firmly enforcing laws allows for harmony. Any real justice is truly impossible, but we can discourage wrongdoing through firm enforcement of laws and making laws based on the principles I stated. 

We can enforce safety. Discouraging "wrongdoing" is a relative goal. What each individual considers to be wrongdoing varies greatly. All obvious crimes which people mostly all agree are crimes like rape, murder, vandalism  have a safety component to them where people, property, or the environment is being protected. Laws which are not directly about safety tend to be divisive laws that are more detrimental to the targeted groups than they are good for society at large. For example outlawing gay marriage has no obvious safety component. One must do mental gymnastics to explain how two individuals marrying impacts the safety of other individuals. In my opinion the enforcement of law should only be about safety. At attempt to use law to provide punishment, justice, at as a deterrent, and etc miss the mark; those goals are not possible. What might discourage you from doing something may not discourage me. What punishment might be a slap on the wrist to you may induce anxiety or depression in me. Laws can keep us safe but can't accurately moderate behavior; encourage or discourage anything. 

[dimreepr]

Justice is a concept I've struggled with for years, in it's purest form it's an eye for an eye. Often used to describe revenge, but revenge is different, revenge demands more than a simple exchange of wrongdoing, revenge demands two eyes. Alas such a simple exchange is impossible in our ever more complex world, much like barter has become our economy, justice has become our legal system. We can't return however appealing the view through the rosy specs.

"You can judge a society by how well it treats its prisoners". Fyodor Dostoevsky 

And by extension it's justice.