Should we stop pretending that justice is a thing?

[Waldo]

It's a nice concept; that we're all playing by the same rules, and that if we break those rules, we would pay the same price as anyone else breaking them. If we had a level playing field and 'justice' applied equally to all, I think that would be a great thing.

 

The longer I live however, the more I'm convinced that justice simply does not exist (sure, we make a sham pretence of justice). Rather, in it's place, instead of fairness, equinimity and true justice; we* have political expediency and power games. We see this, for example, when contries try to influence other contries' legal processes, to get a lighter sentence for a civilian of that county. Or when they don't speak against injustice, because the culprits spend an awful lot of money buying weapons from us. Certainly on the global stage, political expediency trumps justice.

 

Also, on a more individual level, people, I find, are generally partisan or clanish; they practice favouritism and subtley work to affect favourable conditions for those they like, and pernicous conditions for those who are not in the 'in crowd'; they do not treat all people equally with fairness. Even amongst groups of so-called friends.

 

Is fairmindedness a thing of the past?

 

 

* When I say 'we', I'm not just taking about the british legal system; what I refer to is a worldwide phenomena.

[tlangdon12]

No, we absolutely should not pretend that justice is a thing. Even the pretence of justice is better than the alternative. We should fight for justice, and call out the situations that are not just. Fairmindedness is not dead, but it can be seen as unnecessary by those who are not intelligent and wise. 

 

You are right that generally people are partisan and clanish, but if they want to live in a civilised society, some level of fairness for all has to be achieved. 

[Anna B]

11 hours ago, Waldo said:

It's a nice concept; that we're all playing by the same rules, and that if we break those rules, we would pay the same price as anyone else breaking them. If we had a level playing field and 'justice' applied equally to all, I think that would be a great thing.

 

The longer I live however, the more I'm convinced that justice simply does not exist (sure, we make a sham pretence of justice). Rather, in it's place, instead of fairness, equinimity and true justice; we* have political expediency and power games. We see this, for example, when contries try to influence other contries' legal processes, to get a lighter sentence for a civilian of that county. Or when they don't speak against injustice, because the culprits spend an awful lot of money buying weapons from us. Certainly on the global stage, political expediency trumps justice.

 

Also, on a more individual level, people, I find, are generally partisan or clanish; they practice favouritism and subtley work to affect favourable conditions for those they like, and pernicous conditions for those who are not in the 'in crowd'; they do not treat all people equally with fairness. Even amongst groups of so-called friends.

 

Is fairmindedness a thing of the past?

 

 

* When I say 'we', I'm not just taking about the british legal system; what I refer to is a worldwide phenomena.

I tend to agree that  Justice can just be very expensive theatre, and is no longer the bastion for right and good it once was.

Some people are now so rich, influential, or corrupt they are to all intents and purposes, outside the law, and can get away with anything.

 

For a start legal representation (and therefore justice) is now so expensive it is outside the pocket of the ordinary man (except in criminal cases where limited legal aid might apply.) Which is ironic when you consider that the Queen vs ........  cases which can run into £millions have to be paid for by the British taxpayer. But the rich can always buy their way out of situations with the help of top ranking and very expensive lawyers.

 

There also seems to be more and more cases which are now heard in closed or secret courts, which to my way of thinking is against the British way of doing things.  And they have often been accused of miscarriages of justice, particularly the family courts, but of course people's hands are tied by the very fact that these courts seem to operate below the radar.

 

There is certainly a great deal wrong with justice in this country IMO, with its antiquated ways and hidebound traditions that lead to obfuscation and slow progress. It needs a radical overhaul to make it fit for purpose, but that isn't  going to happen when it is in the interests of all those involved to keep it just the way it is - an expensive, elitist, establishment institution,  mired in  obscure custom, jargon and rules which are totally disconnected to the average population it is supposed to serve.

The very definition of 'up its own a***'          

[Waldo]

On 11/26/2018 at 4:27 PM, tlangdon12 said:

Even the pretence of justice is better than the alternative.

This is the thing, I'm not sure it is...

 

Yes, it's a great thing to have ideals; but when we're not actually living up to them; pretending that we are, is a bad idea. When a thing is broken, drawing attention the fact, can only be a good thing; cover it up, and it's business as usual, status quo, no change. If people feel they have a justice system, that applies equally to all, it placates them. So I can certainly see why certain sections of society like to perpetuate the myth that the justice system in our country is fair and balanced etc.

[Phanerothyme]

One person's justice is another's oppression, another's appeasement, and another's vigilantism.

Whether it exists and/or what form a just society must take, has been a discussion that's lasted at least 3000 years and collectively we still haven't figured it out yet. But the right to have your actions and intentions judged by your peers, the establishment of a concensus on  the truth, and against the standards of fairness currently in circulation, seem to be central planks.

 

If we want to contribute to a more just society, we should consider volunteering as a lay magistrates. The courts are crying out for people to become lay magistrates, especially if they're not wealthy, upper middle class, late middle aged people from wealthy upper middle class backgrounds.

Everywhere I hear it discussed, jury service conversations tend to revolve around how to get out of it. I'd be surprised if you haven't experienced something similar.  If you type "how to get out of ..." into google, "jury service" is the second unpromoted choice, after "debt" (YMMV)

If we want to be judged by your peers, we must be prepared to sit in judgement over them ourselves too. A fair, working system of justice depends on people engaging with it and supporting it.

A system of justice will always fail in some way or another, that's inevitable. The important thing is to try and ensure it is always failing in  unprecedented ways, rather than the same ways again and again.