I've chosen one of the most contentious issues to put on this site because it is something about which I feel rather strongly. .
I refuse to accept that "Justice" is a hazy concept which mere mortals are unable to fully comprehend because of its blurry edges.
If "Justice" is a difficult concept for people to understand, it's probably because they have left it to others to do their thinking for them.
Where some people consider justice is the punishment of a criminal for specific violations of the law of the land, rarely is the punishment satisfactory for a victim to feel recompensed. Even where a punishment is extreme to the point of execution, a victim may not feel satisfied.
The concept of justice involves other concepts such as rights, needs, conscience, equilibrium, standards, judgement, responsibility and love.
Where is Justice? Is there Justice at all? What about Natural Justice and Rough Justice? What is Justification?.
Is a shop owner justified in punching a thief in the face?.
At first glance, it would appear so. But what happens if the thief is a starving orphan child who stole a jar of peanuts?.
Is it the child's fault that they are starving and orphaned? Would the shop owner have given the child something to eat if the child had asked? Would it be unjust for the shop owner to refuse to give the child food?.
Suppose the child was arrested for the theft and imprisoned. Would that be justice? If so, whose? And what sentence would be a just sentence and by whose definition of "Just"?.
I have often heard the expression, "There are no winners in this case." Why? Why can't all people concerned come out as winners?.
Is the law just? If so, to whom? Is the suffering endured by those being punished commensurate with the crime committed? Is Justice the sole provenance of legal jurisprudence?.
Is Justice being done when a crime has been committed in which there are no victims, but the transgressors are punished anyway? Who defines what is Justice in this circumstance?.
