• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Who SHOULD justice serve?

blackjack50

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 2011
Messages
26,629
Reaction score
6,655
Location
Florida
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?
 

SocialD

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 20, 2015
Messages
2,467
Reaction score
716
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian - Right
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?

I think justice should serve all. I would not be as concerned about the criminal though as the victim or society as a whole.
Might be easier to add more if you had some examples or circumstances to start with
 

RJApple

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?

In the event a crime with a victim occurs, neither party deserves more justice than the other. True justice is impartial, dealing equally with all parties involved. The criminal's justice is the ability to face his accuser(s), the right to a fair trial, and innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. In some cases, rehabilitation may be helpful, such as in cases of drug abuse (although I feel all narcotics should be legal), however, in cases of premeditated murder and rape, there is no argument for rehabilitation. These are people who should be confined from interacting with society. Justice for the victim varies case by case.

I feel our system does a fair job. Although, I haven't had any personal experience on either end, thankfully. All in all, excepting the fact that laws are sometimes weighted a little too much in the woman's favor in divorce cases and the like, our system does a good job of providing fair trials and such for the people.
 

Paleocon

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 21, 2013
Messages
13,309
Reaction score
1,307
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?

Justice is simply giving to all their due. This justice doesn't serve anyone more than anyone else.

Particular types of legal proceedings are designed to justice to specific classes of people. Criminal proceedings are primarily designed to do justice to the criminal, civil proceedings are primarily designed to do justice to the victim, though with things like punitive civil damages, or criminal restitution, these lines are somewhat blurred.

Note that people don't necessarily want justice done to them. Murderers generally dislike their noose, for example.
 

Thoreau72

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 26, 2012
Messages
29,639
Reaction score
7,637
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?

Justice serves itself, if you must use the term "serve". Or, our elected representatives are supposed to "serve" justice, though a better word would be "seek" justice, pursue justice.

Or, to borrow from Berger v. US 295US78, "The US Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all; and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that JUSTICE shall be done."
 

Socrates1

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 16, 2016
Messages
2,782
Reaction score
469
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?

Denying someone's freedom is the punishment and we all know most career criminals will NEVER be rehabilitated . But in most prisons justice is served by other cons as needed .
 

_Sal

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 9, 2014
Messages
6,472
Reaction score
2,705
Location
somewhere across the border in the great North
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Liberal
This is a political theory discussion, but I am looking towards practical application. Mods move if you see fit.

Who should justice serve: the victim, society, or the unjust (criminal if you will)? When I ask this question I am thinking about who deserves the most justice if someone commits a crime with a victim? There is discussion about how rehabilitation is important. But in a case such as rape, or murder, how important is it that the Victim sees that justice is carried out? And how far does justice for the victim go? What about justice for society? And what about justice for the criminal? How far do you see these goings?

And in our system do you think we serve them? How far for each?

justice must serve every party equally

revenge and justice are not the same thing

when revenge occurs it displaces justice and misaligns everything creating another victim(s)
 

Caine

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 28, 2005
Messages
23,359
Reaction score
7,218
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
In the event a crime with a victim occurs, neither party deserves more justice than the other. True justice is impartial, dealing equally with all parties involved. The criminal's justice is the ability to face his accuser(s), the right to a fair trial, and innocence until proven guilty beyond the shadow of a doubt. In some cases, rehabilitation may be helpful, such as in cases of drug abuse (although I feel all narcotics should be legal), however, in cases of premeditated murder and rape, there is no argument for rehabilitation. These are people who should be confined from interacting with society. Justice for the victim varies case by case.

I feel our system does a fair job. Although, I haven't had any personal experience on either end, thankfully. All in all, excepting the fact that laws are sometimes weighted a little too much in the woman's favor in divorce cases and the like, our system does a good job of providing fair trials and such for the people.
Sorry if I seem nit-picky, but "shadow of a doubt" isn't the standard.

REASONABLE DOUBT is the standard. One might think that they are the same, they are not.

Just a pet peeve of mine.
 

RJApple

Member
Joined
Apr 23, 2016
Messages
111
Reaction score
102
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Sorry if I seem nit-picky, but "shadow of a doubt" isn't the standard.

REASONABLE DOUBT is the standard. One might think that they are the same, they are not.

Just a pet peeve of mine.

Apologies, you're are correct.
 

Lovebug

Let go and let God
DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 19, 2011
Messages
23,891
Reaction score
10,034
Location
south
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Other
What is a victimless crime?
Justice must serve all. When you do wrong, it is justice that you are to be punished.
 
Top Bottom