What is Justice?
Justice is a concept that many, take for granted. It comes in different forms throughout nations and among nations, or stated differently, through time and space.
It seems to be an essential characteristic to the development and maintenance of civilization, and thus intimately related to Law. The law sets bounds on the relations and behavior between people, and in part seeks to regulate justice. Some of the earliest forms of law include Ur-Nammu and Hammurabi's code.
It is worth considering what justice means when it is used because sometimes, people mean different things by it.
Let us break this concept down into some of its parts.
The Purpose of Justice
The purposes of Justice can be broken down into punitive, distributive, and societal purposes.
Punitive
Punitive justice sets out to exact a price. In its most basic form it might be described as "An eye for an eye. A tooth for a tooth." or "If something wrong is done, it should be punished."
Sometimes retribution is taken for misdeeds committed, or due to someone's state of being. I think the keyword here is that it is a form of Retribution.
Distribution
In short, this deals with how justice is like a scale, it seeks to mediate the deeds and transactions among people.
There are three subpoints that qualify under distribution that I would like to cover namely restitution, restoration, and again retribution.
Restorative- Literally to restore. If something was stolen it is returned, or replaced. Sometimes an action is taken and the burden incurred can directly be repaid.
(I differ here from another definition of 'restorative justice' that is used as a method of administering justice. The alternative definition I think more clearly fits as reformative in nature which I'll cover below & you can compare to Wikipedia's entry on restorative justice)
Restitution- To actively correct, restore to a prior state. Restitution can be seen as paying a price to make up for some indiscretion, it is different from retribution in that its focus is on building up, improving, or to replace with equal/similar value. Sometimes there isn't parity. Some actions simply can't be taken back. If it can't be restored, then some form of restitution might be levied.
If a toy is broken and can't be repaired, It might be replaced with money or other things of equal value.
Retribution- These points overlap in purpose, so I think it is worth mentioning briefly retribution again, especially since it is so commonly held. The goal is to take away what someone unjustly gained.
Societal Purposes
This type of Justice is that which is used to build, maintain, or destroy a society.
Reformative
The purpose of reformative justice is to take an individual and to reform them, that is to change or eliminate socially undesirable behaviors. (or to change a society but we will get to that in a moment) If someone steals, it is to teach them or enable them not to steal.
The goal here is to change people into better people. It seems obvious that reformation should be a goal, but it often takes a backseat to retribution, and not everyone is in agreement on what is justly reformed. Reformation of thieves and violent individuals is generally agreeable to many people, but what about other social ills like racist attitudes, or (in some countries) "A twenty-five-year-old son addressing his father by his first name" (The Righteous Mind Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion, page 19) To what extent is it just to reform people? Should they be willing participants? What about reform when it comes to topics that everyone is not in agreement about?
Beginning with reformation we begin to move on from a basic sense of what Justice is to more informative, debated, and politically relevant points.
Protective
Protective justice is justice that weighs in the balance between chaos and order. It seeks to stabilize a society and protect it from failing. Laws or policies that act as a deterrent fit here as well as prescribed civil behavior. This overlaps a bit with other categories; punishment is a deterrent & can be protective; reform that develops respect for other groups and/or country can be protective.
Destructive
Destructive justice is another form of retributive justice that is used to justify the destruction of social systems, standards, societies, cultures, etc. It is a form of justice of change but is controversial in that the people who support those things which are being destroyed typically don't think of justice used this way as justice.
Scope of the Application of Justice
All of the above are some of the main attributes of justice, but beyond this, there are disagreements in when each form of justice should take precedent and even how important the various forms of justice are. If we further investigate these differences another one is revealed:
Should Justice be applied based on groups, individual basis, or some combination of the two?
As a few examples:
Should a family be shamed and held accountable for the misdeeds and crimes of one of its members? (A child commits a major theft, so the family is levied a fine, a parent is sent to prison.)
Should an individual be held accountable for misdeeds and crimes when they are part of a group? (If one member of a gang is caught committing murder only the one to commit the crime is sent to prison, not the entire group.)
People view their world through collectivism, or individualism (or some combination of the two, but let's stay focused on these two prominent paradigms.) Each of these views leads to different ways of answering the two questions above. They can also each affect the viewpoints that develop for the sub-categories that I mention above for how people view justice. Is it just that certain groups be given things? Is it just that certain groups not be given things? Should justice be administered towards individuals or the groups they belong to?
How do you feel about the concept of 'Affirmative Action'? How do you feel about 'Profiling'? Are these two things not similar in that they both judge a group and administer some form of Distributive, and/or Protective Justice towards a group? There are differences between these two policies to be sure, but they both hinge on protecting & reforming: society vs a group, or a group vs society. Arguments for both include statistics for the harm the group causes (e.g. systemic racism) and for harm against the group (e.g. overt crime levels by a group). [Note: I'm sure that someone will argue against this comparison on the grounds that it is some form of false equivalence, though as far as the descriptive characteristics of justice go it is a perfectly valid comparison.]
Suffice it to say with this last example, sometimes Justice is viewed as valid only if it comes from or supporting a preferential group. Is that Just?
Opposing Views of Justice
There is one more interesting view about justice that I came across. This is where Justice is viewed as a process, or where Justice is viewed as an equalizer. These two views also have features written above, but also illustrated a divide in contemporary political views. My summary description of these will somewhat resemble what Thomas Sowell and John Rawls have written.
Justice as a process
This view of justice is where rules are stated and equally applied regardless of circumstance. It is concerned with equality under the law, not some form of cosmic equality. The world is a messy place and people are prone to grant privileges to some and be biased towards others. Since it is impossible to account for all variables that may have had an impact and to avoid the corruption of those who administer justice, Justice should only be concerned about consistent application.
"Traditionally, justice or injustice is characteristic of a process. A defendant in a criminal case would be said to have received justice if the trial were conducted as it should be, under fair rules and with the judge and jury being impartial. After such a trial, it could be said that "justice was done" --regardless of whether the outcome was an acquittal or an execution. Conversely, if the trial were conducted in violation of the rules and with a judge or jury showing prejudice against the defendant, this would be considered an unfair or unjust trial--even if the prosecutor failed in the end to get enough jurors to vote to convict an innocent person. In short, traditional justice is about impartial processes rather than either results or prospects." (Page 9, Sowell)
Justice as an equalizer
This view of justice seeks to correct for advantages or disadvantages to select groups. Sometimes laws, rules, procedures, and social standards should be adapted, exempted, or changed for some groups and individuals because of undeserved inequities.
'Professor John Rawls' celebrated treatise, A Theory of Justice, puts the case more generally. According to Rawls, "undeserved inequalities call for redress," in order to produce "genuine equality of opportunity." In other words, having everyone play by the same rules or be judged by the same standards is merely "formal" equality, in Professor Rawls' view,'
Sowell continues by stating 'truly "fair" equality of opportunity means providing everyone with equal prospects of success from equal individual efforts. [regardless of undeserved inequities]' (Page 12, Sowell)
Sowell apparently is not very fond of Rawl's views. Sowell makes the case that these two views of justice are incompatible with each other.
Quotes from the section Opposing Views of Justice come from the book "The Quest For Cosmic Justice" by Thomas Sowell
