Discussion»Questions»Legal» Justice should be swift for MAXIMUM POSITIVE effect. What is the value of justice delayed for 30 years, 40 years, more? Why?
Because lawyers (who hope to be future politicians) really enjoy twisting the spirit of the law and bastardizing the whole process in order to enhance their own fortunes and power. The have no interest in justice.
Here's the backstory behind this question Rose. I don't know if you read Nice Jugs' reply to a question I asked but she shared a story of someone who literally got away with murder fro 30 years and it is just now coming to light. I wonder how many cases of injustice there have been, are and will be futurely? It is always shocking to find out that "justice" is often a joke and those who are supposed to uphold it are the ones who undermine it. Thank you for your reply. I guess greed above all is what many folks are true to. Another question ariseth from this chat. Thanks for that! :)
This post was edited by RosieG at September 12, 2017 7:16 AM MDT
But that is the point I am trying to make, those punishments are not just. And become even more unjust when it is a death sentence, since that cannot possibly be reversed when new forensic evidence turn up to prove the 'muderer' did not do it.
Very few murders are a simple as "I will kill that George and take his money"
So at the end of Trumps term All his Golf courses should be razzed, as well as his buildings? what is just about that?
It used to be, back in biblical times, that the patriarch owned his tribe. That made him fully responsible for everything anu member of his tribe did. In that context "An eye for an eye" almost makes sense. When one of patriarch A' people gouge out the eye of one of patriarc B' people one of patriarc A's peiople loses an eye too. But what what if patriarc B is the one who lose an eye, does he then get to gouge out the eye of Patriark A? Not likely, instead the 2 tribes will probably fight until most in both tribes are dead. This "eye for an eye" idea rest and relies on the notion that people are owned and not free. Today we call that slavery and find it despicable.
So today: How much does 'daddy' own his children? Enough that damage to your beloved child can be 'balanced out' by similar damage to the other daddy's child? What about 'mommy'? If the othere childs mommy is already dead, is there less loss in the other family?. Today we would call that ludicrous, back in the days of Hammurabi it was the best they could do. ThaT justified it then but it never really made it just. or fair. We can do better than that, even if only a little bit.
The concept is faultless. You do wrong. You pay for it. That is justice. Here's the problem with that. Those empowered to uphold it sometimes (maybe often) derail it/sabotage it for their own personal gain. Still the ideal of Justice and Truth and Honor will always be something to strive to achieve. In ideality. In reality? Not so much. Thank you for your reply JakobA and Happy Tuesday! :)
That is justice ONLY if we do not consider the collateral damage to innocent bystanders. The idea of justice that you argue foer quarantees escalation of every situation until everyone is fighting everyone to the death. It has happened over and over in history.
I suggest you check out just how many places your Bible say "Do not judge" or "Judgement is mine(Gods)", You will find it all over the place. And even with that people still want justice so badly that they end up killing eachother wholesale. You are not the only one who ever thought judging is easy. Every Lynch party thought so too. Do that make you feel better?
RoseS 