What is justice?

Retribution (An eye for an eye).

1 (4.2%)

Restitution (Payment for harm).

12 (50%)

Virtue based (I have changed, so I am not the same person as before...).

3 (12.5%)

Other (Please explain).

1 (4.2%)

Any/All (Please explain).

7 (29.2%)

Total Members Voted: 6

[ladyattis]

There you go. Solve one of the slew of old riddles of philosophy here.

-- Bridget

EDIT: Here is a wikiarticle about different theories of justice, if you want to read up on it.
         Here is a wikiarticle specifically on criminal justice for clarification.

[bonerjoe]

Can I vote for any or all of the above?

[ladyattis]

Can I vote for any or all of the above?

I'll add that for you.

-- Bridget

[Evil Muppet]

philosophizers yammer on ad nauseum about this subject and you think you can narrow it down to a four question quiz? 

[ladyattis]

Yep, cause there's not much else to discuss about it in philosophy circles rather than application. And you know most philosophers are not good at that part of the equation, which is why engineers and scientists point and laugh.

-- Bridget

[Evil Muppet]

shame on you.  Philosofistic circles do nothing but talk about senseless things. 

[ladyattis]

"The Time has come, " the Walrus said, "to talk of many things: of shoes and ships and sealing wax of cabbages and kings." -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass.

-- Bridget

[ladyattis]

Plus, it's not as worthless as you think, in that analysis garners us the best possible options to which when the discussion leads to implementation, that part of the problem is easier to solve since the options are restricted by then.

Only with Existentialists and Post-Modern philosophers [more toward the latter than the former] you will find useless drivel, the rest tend toward Empiricism as the foundation of their arguments.

-- Bridget

[ReverendRyan]

Restitution. Virtue-based sounds nice, but is still forcing a way of thinking on the offender in lieu of compensating for what was taken. Justice belongs to the victim. (note i said justice, not revenge.) Virtue is a definite side-effect of justice, but not the underlying idea. If a thief returns what was stolen from you along with interest and any punitive damages, you got your justice, even if they are still a thief.

I know that the revelations about Mark brought this up, so here's my needless-to-say unconventional take on justice, using our best buddy as an example:

Mark is a party to taking the life of a man. Mark owes a debt to him.
Of course, the man is dead, so the debt is transferred to his heirs.
Florida collects from Mark in the form of time. The state has bought the note.
Debt is now owed to family by Florida.

In other words, the state of Florida collected the sum value of nine years from Mark, but never paid it back to the debtor, the victim's family.

If someone understands what I mean and can explain it better, please do.

[ladyattis]

Yet the intent of justice is really two fold if you think about it.

First, to restore what you take by force.

Second, to bring, on the whole, harmony back to the public.

The first point is easy to understand and to implement, the second point is harder to understand and to implement, yet it is essentially for the first point to exist. An example would be, some person steals from another, the first point states that it is the job of defenders of law to seek out the thief and make him/her restore/replace the stolen property in whole. The second point then states after point one is fulfilled that all status between the thief and the victim are restored to normal, and that no one else, not even the victim, has the right to retaliate. More so, the second point states that society on the whole has no right to interfere with the thief after restitution is made and that the thief as reformed his/her ways. This point may seem confusing and some how sanctioning the aggressor/thief, but in reality what it sanctions is that justice is restricted from covering revenge. More so, it implies justice is owned by no one and that decrees based upon it must come from a universal assertion of 'harmony' of both points one and two.

-- Bridget

[ReverendRyan]

You have three basic rights which cover all others: Life, Liberty, Property. Sorry hon, but "harmony" ain't one of them.


Edit: And by saying that reform is a prerequisite to justice, you are arguing for thoughtcrime prosecution.

[bonerjoe]

Justice should be up to the victim. But should not exceed "an eye for an eye" in compensation or retaliation.

[Taors]

Justice should be up to the victim. But should not exceed "an eye for an eye" in compensation or retaliation.

Agreed.

[money dollars]

Justice should be up to the victim. But should not exceed "an eye for an eye" in compensation or retaliation.

Agreed.

I can agree too,  as "should" is only a suggestion.

[bonerjoe]

Of course, if you're dead you can't exactly retaliate. Maybe there should be "murder wills" to describe how to apply justice when you are killed.