There is law. And there is justice. It would be nice if the two coincided a bit more often.
Click to vote
3%3 Votes
Strongly Disagree
1%1 Votes
Disagree
12%12 Votes
Undecided
48%48 Votes
Agree
36%36 Votes
Strongly Agree
3%3 Votes
Strongly Disagree
1%1 Votes
Disagree
12%12 Votes
Undecided
48%48 Votes
Agree
36%36 Votes
Strongly Agree
Male
Female
0%0 Votes
Strongly Disagree
0%0 Votes
Disagree
9%5 Votes
Undecided
55%30 Votes
Agree
36%20 Votes
Strongly Agree
Results by Country
Results by Voter Type
Community votes are collected from you and other visitors to Ask500People. Independent votes are collected from visitors to hundreds of other websites around the world.
Sign Up or Login
Sorry, this data is only available to users with an account.
Sure. But why are you assuming that the purpose of law is justice? I don't think that has been true since justice was moved out of the hands of the community and into the hands of professionals.
Not that community justice was all that great, as it allowed for little restraint on revenge. Which is NOT justice, no matter how loudly devotees argue for it.
A better concept, and one that is sometimes in use in communities today, is balance and restoration.
For more information on this movement (of which my Critical Thinking professor was a member), read here:
The idea of vengeance did not even cross my mind when I asked this question. And lack of justice because of the worship of legalism can just as easilly result in too much punishment as in too little.
For a very long time 'law' has been made by lawyers whose priorities are 1) the interests of the legal profession and 2) making the game more complex and, therefore, more fun and a truer test of skill for the players - not included among the latter are plaintiffs, defendants, victims, taxpayers or anyone else. If achieving justice is a priority I suppose it comes in at about 62).
If you doubt me read Great Expectations. Dickens got it right.
Sweden
Sure. But why are you assuming that the purpose of law is justice? I don't think that has been true since justice was moved out of the hands of the community and into the hands of professionals.
Not that community justice was all that great, as it allowed for little restraint on revenge. Which is NOT justice, no matter how loudly devotees argue for it.
A better concept, and one that is sometimes in use in communities today, is balance and restoration.
For more information on this movement (of which my Critical Thinking professor was a member), read here:
http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/implementing/balanced.html
I particularly like, and find to be necessary to true justice, the following tenets:
# The community is responsible for the well-being of all its members, including both victim and offender.
# All human beings have dignity and worth.
# Restoration -- repairing the harm and rebuilding relationships in the community -- is the primary goal of restorative juvenile justice.
# Results are measured by how much repair was done rather than by how much punishment was inflicted.
Although this particular website is directed at juvenile offenses, it is just as true for adults.
Note that, like our current judicial system, it has no provisions for how to deal with those that are not capable of community--the sociopath.
Good points, some of which even I agree with.
Imo the focus should not be only on the criminal law.
Nor on punishment, which does NOTHING except give you a momentary emotional rush.
What? Do you really believe that punishment has NO deterrent effect?
I voted agree but you have to admit that one mans justice is often another mans vengeance. Vengeance and Justice are rarely the same thing.
The idea of vengeance did not even cross my mind when I asked this question. And lack of justice because of the worship of legalism can just as easilly result in too much punishment as in too little.
If you are interested in learning more about it, google 'balance and restorative justice'
For a very long time 'law' has been made by lawyers whose priorities are 1) the interests of the legal profession and 2) making the game more complex and, therefore, more fun and a truer test of skill for the players - not included among the latter are plaintiffs, defendants, victims, taxpayers or anyone else. If achieving justice is a priority I suppose it comes in at about 62).
If you doubt me read Great Expectations. Dickens got it right.
It is an inevitable result of a system whose only measure of success is winning.
I totally agree; we should be able to throw pies at the criminals! Justice for all! ;)