I’m not well read on theories of criminal justice, but from how i understand, I don’t see jail-time or punishment in the criminal justice system really as any kind of “justice”. For example, a bank robber who gets 10yrs in prison, is not serving some term because the “punishment fits the crime” and therefore it is just. I think ‘criminal justice’ is just a construct of the law-and society where ‘punishment’, jails and prisons are deterrents and disencentives for violations of natural rights and state laws. Is this a correct view of why a ‘justice system’ exists, primarily as a deterrent of crime not a provider of justice.
What would a just punishment be? What is your definition of justice? From Wikipedia:
Justice is the concept of moral rightness based on ethics, rationality, law, natural law, fairness, religion and/or equity.
Justice concerns the proper ordering of things and persons within a society. As a concept it has been subject to philosophical, legal, and theological reflection and debate throughout history. A number of important questions surrounding justice have been fiercely debated over the course of western history: What is justice? What does it demand of individuals and societies? What is the proper distribution of wealth and resources in society: equal, meritocratic, according to status, or some other arrangement? There are myriad possible answers to these questions from divergent perspectives on the political and philosophical spectrum.
Yes, we use jail as a deterrent and consider that to be justice. Biblical law would, I believe, make him repay the stolen money, perhaps as a slave to the bank owner.
In our town up until 2 years ago, our nearest prison would supply us with voluntary labor and a guard which was used for road side maintenance at a very cheap price which the men earned and used in the prison store, usually for cigarettes. But 2 years ago our State decided this was unfair to the prisoners.
I think this is an aspect of justice, but not the whole story. Justice is also a force of renewal. I think the retribution aspect is this renewal part, in other words to return a sense of peace and harmony of the society intact. A murder occurred and now discord reverberates in the society. It is now a slippery slope. The act of murder was committed and therefore it is perceivable to strike again by a known individual. Not that murder will end if the individual is caught, but murder by that individual is now less likely.
I think justice also involves sustainment. For instance as the State grows in control it’s corruption grows with it. Bailout after bailout to use what has become more common knowledge to have occurred, inflames injustice. The laws of nature in the free market in which failure is a possibility due to poor business if propped up by bailouts harms the innocent that have to bail them out (more taxes upon the innocent). When SEC rules are broken by the alleged pressures of Paulson and Bernanke upon Bank of America which is currently being reviewed at court in New York justice is not only renewing the havoc by this State intervention, but it is also letting it not happen in the first place cause justice was followed. Yet since it probably did happen in the first place that an injustice prevailed by what can be called a lawless society. It’s this difference between a lawless society and a society built on law. To know and actively break a law will create further discord and lack of freedom in a society. This activity wears and tears upon the strength and sustainment of law which is justice.
So I see justice sustaining harmony for the social and intellectual laws are being kept attended to and thus the awareness is present. I also see justice brings back a break in this attention by the people. I total fallout is injustice and a weaker society that grows with crime and the crime is also allowed to grow both are due to a lack of justice in sustainment and renewal.
that’s my little bit on it anyways… maybe others have something to add…
Exactly.
Not quite.
If society is the sum of voluntary, peaceful interaction, Justice is the means through which to return to a state of society after anti-social actions have occurred.
Justice allows for conflicts to be resolved, rather than escalated.
huh? I didn’t say they would escalate. What you quoted was me pointing out the effect of justice. Murder by that individual is now less likely due to retribution through justice and thus a restoration of harmony. The slippery slope occurs if justice is not returned.
You’re using the word justice too liberally.
Shooting candy bar theifs would reduce the chance that a candy bar would be stolen again by that individual, but that doesn’t make it just.
Who said that situation would be just? Justice is more than just killing everybody so nobody steals. We were talking about retribution. I wasn’t commenting on how or what kind of retribution. I was discussing the acts of justice themselves. Renew and sustain harmony.
fact: Justice systems should deter crime by enforcing just laws that do fit the crime
inprisonment as a deterant? 4 out of 5 people who goto jail will be back in 5 years.
governments have only 3 just punishments
capital,corporal, restitution
the just and right view of government is essential to understanding all moral issues
including theft , property rights and punishments for crime
As a criminal justice major who intends to go to law school maybe I can weigh in here. Justice is obviously subjective, some people may believe that a bank robber serving 10 years incarceration is just while others may say it is too harsh, some may say it’s too lenient, some may want a completely different punishment. The entire point of law is to simply deter people from violating societal norms by threatening them with punishment(s). You raise an interesting point that we’re not really sure if “justice” is provided. Nobody is even sure how much of a deterrant effect certain punishments have. For instance, with the death penalty there are usually higher murder rates in states that use it. Is this because it doesn’t deter people, or is it just that the states use the death penalty because their murder rates are so high? (I am personally against the death penalty for moral reasons and the fact that it costs more to execute somebody than leave them in jail for life).
Ideally a justice system should deter crime and provide justice. I think this ideal would be present in a free society and not just a statist society. There have been some advances made, albeit very small ones, with restorative justice. On a low level, this might involve a kid who vandalizes some lady’s house to go and clean it up, help her with her garden, etc. This 1) increases the responsibility of the offender, as opposed to him just sweeping a street or sitting in a detention center or paying a fine and it 2) is inexpensive and 3) it actually accomplishes something instead of throwing him in a juvenile detention center or making him pay heavy fines. On a higher level, families and friends of a person who was murdered sit down with the murderer and have a mediated discussion (very intense to watch).
There are a couple reasons why justice isn’t existent in our current system. First, laws are not made based upon depriving another of their life, liberty, or property. Unforunately, laws are passed to enforce “morals”. This is evident in idiotic laws banning drugs, prostitution, gambling, sodomy, etc. Who is the beneficiary of such “justice”? People committing victimless crimes cannot essentially brought to justice, because the so-called justice doesn’t really serve anybody. Sure, people will claim it “benefits society” but we all know that’s simply not true. The second reason why I think justice doesn’t exist in our present system is because laws are so inconsistent and disproportionate. This is especially evident with the war on flowers, I mean, war on drugs, where a person can get a harsher sentence for possession of a small amount of crack than assault causing serious bodily injury or 8-20 years for possession of 4 oz. or more or sale of 2 oz. or more of narcotics, while the average sentence for murder is 18 years (see Rockefeller drug laws in NY State). Child rapists can get off easier than a person possessing a plant; as long as we have a system like that in place, there is no chance justice will exist.
In liberty,
Chris
Again, not true.
If that were the case then every crime would have the death penalty. Deterence is not equivalent to justice.
Why does the statement I made imply that every crime had the death penalty? I just don’t understand how you came to that conclusion. Let’s look at contract law in a free society. If somebody defaulted on debt, we obviously wouldn’t have a law sentencing them to death. However, we would have a law to require them to fork over collateral (if there is any) and if there was none, to compensate for the damages in the future possibly with interest, etc. There are many possibilities. Hence the law here is giving an incentive to be on time with your debt payments with the threat of punishment; in this case losing collateral, paying up in the future with added interest or puntiive payments, etc.
If you read my post more carefully, I think you would realize that I said quite the opposite of deterrence being equivalent of to justice. I actually described justice as only being possible if there was a victim involved, and if that victim believed that whatever punishment was given for the offender’s violation was to the degree of being “just”.
In liberty,
Chris
It was a Reduco Ad Absurdum.
The law doesn’t exist to prevent crime, it can’t prevent crime.