Is this just ?

[Externet]

The definition of justice I prefer says that   - justice is to constantly and permanently impart to each one what is deserved -

Is it just when only one judge of thousands decides to free/reverse/pardon someone accused of a crime ?   Implies that justice is subject to personal opinions, not a set rule that fits consensus.

[dimreepr]

5 minutes ago, Externet said:

The definition of justice I prefer says that   - justice is to constantly and permanently impart to each one what is deserved -

Is it just when only one judge of thousands decides to free/reverse/pardon someone accused of a crime ?   Implies that justice is subject to personal opinions, not a set rule that fits consensus.

Is it just, when you don't get the revenge you deserve?

I prefer to think justice is what they get by damaging themselves; so I don't need to spend my mental energy on them.

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Externet said:

The definition of justice I prefer says that   - justice is to constantly and permanently impart to each one what is deserved -

Is it just when only one judge of thousands decides to free/reverse/pardon someone accused of a crime ?   Implies that justice is subject to personal opinions, not a set rule that fits consensus.

Justice as you and WIKI say, is imparting to each what he deserves. In a reasonable westernised democratic society, justice is dispensed by the courts of the land. As in any endeavour, sometimes they can get it wrong. As it happens, I watched a program last night based on a British Nanny in the USA, named  Louise Woodward, who was wrongly convicted of murder of a baby  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case

The justice we generally talk about, and I presume what you have in mind, concerns criminal justice systems for crimes and misdemenours. There are also ample opportunities and chances given to those convicted of crime to change their ways and again become reasonable law abiding citizens. Sometimes these opportunities like parole, suspended sentences, are to no avail, and are ignored by some. This was all discussed in the justice/punishment thread a while back.

 Imparting justice can also be a more personal issue as per for example, imparting justice to a bully. There are examples of such also in the justice/punishment thread.

[Peterkin]

7 hours ago, Externet said:

Is it just when only one judge of thousands decides to free/reverse/pardon someone accused of a crime ? 

It would depend on the judge, the crime, the accusation, the evidence, the basis on which the judge freed or reversed a previous decision (It matters which, and judges don't have the authority to pardon) and whether a fair trial was conducted in the first place. Since every judge is one in thousands and every judge has to make decisions that nobody else makes, I don't understand the number reference.

There is a process which is intended to deliver justice, and more or less effectively designed to be able to deliver justice, and then there is a political and economic system in which that process is supposed to work, and in which there factors that contribute to and factors that detract from the effectiveness of the process.

So, if you want to ask whether a particular decision is fair, you have to supply more details.

If the question is about some other aspect of the situation, perhaps you can clarify.   

Edited April 17, 2022 by Peterkin

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

Justice as you and WIKI say, is imparting to each what he deserves. In a reasonable westernised democratic society, justice is dispensed by the courts of the land. As in any endeavour, sometimes they can get it wrong. As it happens, I watched a program last night based on a British Nanny in the USA, named  Louise Woodward, who was wrongly convicted of murder of a baby  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case

The justice we generally talk about, and I presume what you have in mind, concerns criminal justice systems for crimes and misdemenours. There are also ample opportunities and chances given to those convicted of crime to change their ways and again become reasonable law abiding citizens. Sometimes these opportunities like parole, suspended sentences, are to no avail, and are ignored by some. This was all discussed in the justice/punishment thread a while back.

 Imparting justice can also be a more personal issue as per for example, imparting justice to a bully. There are examples of such also in the justice/punishment thread.

Only you know what you deserve, sure you can let your ego bully you; but restorative justice is a thing...

[beecee]

7 hours ago, dimreepr said:

Only you know what you deserve, sure you can let your ego bully you; but restorative justice is a thing...

😵 It seems like you are saying that criminals should dictate their own punishments? Then I must ask are you really  serious??? Or is this just more cryptic rhetoric? 

 Then I read your restorative justice system. Great idea if it works!!! So then we have some arsehole rape and assault your wife... or in a previous case I mentioned, a known criminal, on parole, abducting a little girl, and raping her for 45 minutes, then stabbing one of her rescuers....Obviously no such restorative justice system would ever work in such situations. 

Then your article goes on and says...."Before a restorative process begins, the facilitator checks that everyone wishes to proceed voluntarily, that the person responsible for the offence accepts the basic facts of the case and takes responsibility for their part, and that it is safe to proceed. The process focuses on three aspects (Scottish Government, 2017)"

Again obviously a system that could be considered for minor crimes short of rape, serious assaults and murder. In essence the restorative justice system, along with the other many crime prevention and retribution methods that exist in a western society, (like parole, suspended sentences, ankle bracelets, community serivces) will not and should not apply to serious crimes such as rape and murder. The established court justice systems and punishments must apply in those.

23 hours ago, beecee said:

 Imparting justice can also be a more personal issue as per for example, imparting justice to a bully. There are examples of such also in the justice/punishment thread.

In situations as above, and as per the example I gave with my own Son in the justice/punishment thread, sometimes standing up to a bully, or helping others directly that are being bullied is far more a desirable outcome.( Briefly my Son at around 4 or 5 years of age was being hit constantly by another 4 or 5 year old and would come inside crying. I told him the next time it happened, to hit him back as hard as he could. The inevitable happened, my Son did what I had told him, and 40 odd years later they have been the best men at eaches weddings, and remain the closest of friends, along with his parents and myself and my Mrs.)

[dimreepr]

16 hours ago, beecee said:

It seems like you are saying that criminals should dictate their own punishments?

No, I am saying that people punish themselves far more effectively than you could; room 101

Quote

Room 101 is a place introduced in the novel Nineteen Eighty-Four by George Orwell. It is a torture chamber in the Ministry of Love in which the Party attempts to subject a prisoner to his or her own worst nightmare, fear or phobia.

 

A criminal that runs from justice, is never free of their crime; they spend their life looking backwards, never looking forward to life...

[Externet]

Hi.

Similar situation yesterday...  One judge decided to eliminate face masks against covid19.   If hundreds of other judges do not coincide with that ruling against CDC; is it just ?  In the event of future deaths due to the no-mask ruling, will the judge be guilty ?  

[beecee]

6 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No, I am saying that people punish themselves far more effectively than you could; room 101

A criminal that runs from justice, is never free of their crime; they spend their life looking backwards, never looking forward to life...

Sure. Whatever! 😂

[dimreepr]

17 hours ago, Externet said:

Hi.

Similar situation yesterday...  One judge decided to eliminate face masks against covid19.   If hundreds of other judges do not coincide with that ruling against CDC; is it just ?  In the event of future deaths due to the no-mask ruling, will the judge be guilty ?  

He didn't mandate the none wearing of mask's, people are still free to protect themselves from COVID-19.

In a complex situation where the balance of the scales of justice is uncertain and he's made on honest judgement, we can't use captain hindsight to proclaim his guilt, how would that be just?

[Peterkin]

20 hours ago, Externet said:

One judge decided to eliminate face masks against covid19. 

I don't believe this is accurate. For one thing, i don't see where a judge, even a supreme court judge, has the power to enact an entire law. Without a citation, I can only surmise that an unnamed judge in some unspecified court, upheld a law enacted by a misguided government to drop the mask requirement.

That's what happened in Ontario. Our Provincial Premier in his Fatheaded Wisdom, ended official mask mandate in public places. 

Quote

“We’re going to move forward cautiously and if someone wants to keep them on, God bless ’em. You know, good for them,” Ford said.

  I think 'moving on' is code for giving up, and maybe a lot of judges think so, too. But they can't enforce a law that's not on on the books anymore.

My personal response was to buy an even better mask and stop frequenting store that have given up trying to regulate customers.

[beecee]

In short, nothing is perfect, but the present generally democratic western style workable justice systems, are by far, the best we have, along with their checks and balances such as paroles, suspended sentences, and such. 

The problem of course exists with those criminals and misfits that chose to thumb their noses at such reformation/rehabilitation attempts. So  much so, that there is now much tightening up of these attempts at leniency by the courts in NSW. This is obviously making it much harder for the young impulsive first time offender that may benefit from such attempts. The object of course of any justice system in the first instance, is to protect the general public and potential victims, from such societal misfits.  

Edited April 20, 2022 by beecee

[Peterkin]

Mask mandates have very little to do with criminality.

[Kittenpuncher]

The works and laws of men were not intended to do justice, I believe

For years I assumed that man would be willing to instill justice of their own years; that was apparently a deep, glaring naivety at this point. 

Justice is done, but mankind invented their legal systems to disguise the hand of the Lord as he ensures justice, genuinely and perfectly, so that all face a tragic damnation

It baffled me to imagine why they did this; it doesn't seem like it had to be that way

But they did

Whether or not I can rationalize what motivated them to do this is beyond me, but that doesn't change the reality

It's just something you have to deal with

Justice is not subjective; you make this mistake of thinking that it is, but that is because you've simply lost track of what remains objectively true in such a scenario

"Moral subjectiveness" is a dark, fruitless, and lonesome road. I suggest you take the brighter path so you don't simply bring more pain and suffering onto yourself, as well as others. It's a concept that has been twisted into a weapon, one that takes it's life by clearly and directly turning individuals into sociopaths

Hopefully something will open your eyes one day, it's a very difficult thing to accomplish, but when you do, it's too obvious to not see

Thank you, goodbye