What Is Justice In America Today?

Great Debates
1

First things first.

Now the Law.com Dictionary defines justice as, “1) fairness. 2) moral rightness. 3) a scheme or system of law in which every person receives his/ her/its due from the system, including all rights, both natural and legal.”

Dictionary.com defines it as, “1) The quality of being just; fairness. 2) The principle of moral rightness; equity. 3) Conformity to moral rightness in action or attitude; righteousness. 4) The upholding of what is just, especially fair treatment and due reward in accordance with honor, standards, or law. 5) Law. The administration and procedure of law. Conformity to truth, fact, or sound reason.”

So why is it that in many criminal cases, where the defendant has been judged accordingly and convicted, justice is not seemed to have been done? Sure in a case where the crime involves the death of someone, we don’t have the power to restore that life. Yet, through the judicial process, the verdict is rendered fairly. And yet, people still scream for justice.

Are we confusing justice with vengence? Have we as a society every considered justice without the taint of vengence? If so, is this apparent skewering of justice in these types of cases also tainting non-criminal cases, even the entire system?

In addition, does the media compound the process with their collective call that the “public has the right to know,” in a context of right here, right now? Taking the Scott / Laci Peterson case for the moment – and only as an example for this thread, and nothing more – is justice really being served when the media calls for cameras in the courtroom? Does the public really need to know the court details, as they are delivered in the court, or is the media tainting the concept of justice (just to win rating points)? Wouldn’t a daily update via print reporters be sufficient to help keep the government honest, provide for a fair trial for the accused, and keep the public informed? With that in mind, would a tape-delayed account (after the trial) still serve the public interest, and more importantly preserve the integrity of justice for all?

Or is this all airy fairly stuff, in that the justice/vengence link is inherent in our system? Has it always been this way in our society, or did it evolve over time?

Personally, I think the citizenry has developed the skewed justice/vengence nexus, with assistance from the media. Of course, sharing the blame only means no one is at fault.

Thoughts?

2

“Sandra Joncas will spend nine months in jail… for stabbing her baby girl to death as she gave birth more than two years ago.”

Here’s a case in which the defendant has been judged and convicted. Maybe the verdict has even been rendered fairly.

Can you understand while people still scream for justice? Is this an example of the “principle of moral rightness; equity”?

3

Well, gee, autz, you can’t expect them to sentence anyone to more than 9 months for murder. After all, there’s only so much room in the prisons, and it’s absolutely vital that anyone caught comitting the heinious crime of trying to feel good (using verbotten substances) must be locked up and the key thrown away. If that means that murderers, rapists, and other violent criminals have to get light sentences and/or early parole, so be it.

4

People who are emotionally invested in any event have a harder time being objective or impartial about it.

Obviously, when a murderer or a sexual offender or any other violent criminal gets any sentence short of the death penalty, the victim and/or friends and family thereof are likely to feel that justice would have been served better with a harsher sentence. This is normal and should be tolerated.

It only becomes problematic if this sort of subjectivity spreads across the general population. I’m not convinced that this is the case.

5

Keep in mind that even with cameras in the courtroom and millions of Americans watching, it is the 12 people in the jury box who are charged with dispensing a just verdict in the case. They will not be able to see any of the TV coverage, and (AFAIK) the cameras are not allowed to point in their direction. Trials in the US are generally public, and you could attend in person if you were lucky enough to get inside. Having cameras is different only in degree, not in any fundamental way. They may affect the amount of grandstanding performed by the various attorneys, but these high profile lawyers will be grandstanding their little hearts out even w/o the cameras.

I don’t see the issue. Maybe a better thought out example would illustrate your point better. I really don’t see what it is that you are getting at in your OP.

6

In the western world we lost justice a long time ago and replaced it with law.

I mourn the loss

7

And you would do what to “replace” it?

8

I’d agree that a ‘justice’ and ‘vengeance’ are pretty much the same thing in the minds of a lot of people. Just look at spanna’s terse comment, there.

I think the link to the Joncas case illustrates the point that the words have different meanings. The article makes it clear that the woman was probably seriously mentally ill, and I don’t see that justice necessarily would have been served by a lengthy criminal incarceration here, nor do I think that the facts of this particular case (at least as described in the article) argue for the removal of judge’s discretion in sentencing.

On the face of it, I don’t personally have a problem with televising of trials, which after all are generally public proceedings, if someone wants to follow the events of a particular case.

9

Also Police are being pressured into showing “results” which means just finding any convenient scapegoat… preferably young and black to make it more plausible. Its not that police are out to get anyone… but the result is the same… the first suspect usually is good enough… why bother looking further.

10

Rashak Mani,

Have a cite? My cop friend must have been absent the day they were told to use blacks as scapegoats.

11

I also would be interested in your cite for this wild assertion.

12

"Have a cite? My cop friend must have been absent the day they were told to use blacks as scapegoats."

"I also would be interested in your cite for this wild assertion."

Just a few from the ACLU website under:
Police Practices : Racial Profiling

It’s not exactly a “wild” assertion, is it?