Definition of Justice?

[Sean K]

What is justice and how is it equated and judged?

How is there so great a difference between cultures?

How can Corby get 20 years for 5kg kg of pot, and Bakar Bashir get 10 or so for organising the killing of hundreds?



I am sure we can pick out many other examples of this.

Any other misjudgements out there?

 

[sptrawler]

In a politically correct(gone mad) Australia. Kennas ,nobody is going to tell their stories of injustice.
Anyone who came here pre 1970, will be looking at this asylum seeker debacle and wondering why they didn't complain more.
The old saying " the meek will inherit the earth" will play out as per script. They say help us we are meek. So we help and help and help and help.


No I can't say anymore, I will only be payed out on.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Kennas. Well done for opening up this hypocrisy for comment. Different judge, different outcome. I think they consider "deservedness" when sentencing based on such things as age, sex, nationality, skin colour, financial state, beauty, criminal history, friends, relations, associates, political standing, contributions to society, religious sway and many more reasons, not the least being to 'set an example'.

 

[tothemax6]

As far as I can tell, Justice comprises those set of rules which most minimize conflict between men. The extent to which such a set is enforced (and not violated) by the 'law' in various countries is another issue entirely.

 

[disarray]

justice should be natural. natural means how society feels about a crime. the problem is society is made up individuals with a whole spectrum of views and this changes over time.

early examples like "an eye for an eye" were a quick emotional salve for the victim of an injustice. chuck in some religious / philosophical framework to give these emotional responses context and you've got a basic justice system - the ten commandments or confucian laws or what have you.

but now society (and by extension, government policy) tries to be more logical than emotional. back in the 1800's hanging someone for poaching a deer was par for the course, fast forward 200 years and we don't do the whole eugenics / slavery / arranged marriage thing anymore.

so when applying justice in this modern age we apply modern logical principles which throws up the whole "bad upbringing / mental illness" defence (and corresponding leniency), whereas 200 years ago looneys went to arkham and thieves went to the gallows because we felt like they deserved it.

on one side is the cold, logical "shoot a rabid dog" mentality. on the other is the more amorphous emotional / compassionate considerations. as individuals we all fall somewhere along that spectrum, and laws reflect what most individuals agree upon.

justice = logic vs compassion. be it sentences for paedophilia or the treatment of boat people, you'll weigh up how you feel with what you think and come up with your definition of justice.

so in indonesia their justice is dope is death but religious extremism is lower on the scale. for us its messed up but we can't really call it a misjudgement because this is one of those "its relative" things.

 

[Calliope]

Justice in Orwellian doublespeak actually includes injustice. Courts of Justice in all countries dispense injustice as well as justice. Our courts will hand out different sentences to different people for similar crimes. They bear little relation to public expectations or wishes.

 

[Glen48]

We are own worst enemy every thing needs to be overhauled Voting, Law, Courts. Jails, drugs, euthanasia after all who get hurt the person who wants to die, Political system but while people are happy to be brained washed by main stream media it will never happen.

 

[sails]

Justice can be a strange thing and doesn't always seem morally or ethically logical at times. Kennas, I agree that justice doesn't seem the right word when it comes to the sentencing. It seems they have different rules for different people. I have also become dismayed at our own family laws in this country where the word justice seems hard to justify.

Take the situation of a separated family. It seems there is a female gender bias in our legal system that enables a mother to withhold children from seeing their father. That way she picks up way more in child support payments.

Usually, if you pay for something, you get something in return. It seems not so in Australia. A mother can simply take the kids, set any visitation times for the father that she chooses while collecting higher child support payments than if they had shared care. The mother seems to have no obligation to show where the child support payments have gone to make the kids life better - she can do whatever she likes with it. Gamble, drink, smoke - whatever takes her fancy. If the father has sufficient finance (eg $40,000 - $100,000) lying around, it seems he has no rights until he gets a good family lawyer (usually around $400+ per hour) and even then there are no guarantees.

If a father doesn't have sufficient finance and is not elligible for legal aid, there is nothing he can do. His hands are tied and his kids have no say either. Often his income precludes him from legal aid, however, by the time he pays his own rental, living costs and child support (which is not tax deductible), there is often very little left.

I read recently on a forum of a dad who has two boys aged ten and twelve. The story goes something like this: they predominately live with the mother by court order, however, the boys have grown more and are apparently now so unhappy being predominately in their mother's care, they have resorted to running away. This particular father received a phone call from the boys early one morning and found out they were in a stranger's house who had let the boys use their phone to call their Dad. They had knocked on a couple of doors until someone let them use a phone. The boys begged their dad not to take them back to their mother as they are so unhappy there. However, due to the court order, he had no choice. He apparently sought legal advice and was told he would need to pay considerable $ so that boys could have their voice heard in court. Money he doesn't have so these boys will enter their teen years desperately unhappy and yet it seems nothing can be done to help them.

I find this unbelievable in our country. I was so disturbed by this story of these boys who are potentially putting themselves in danger that I called one of the kids charities. I was told there was nothing they could do to help as they would not have the funds either to have the children's voices heard in court. IMO, true justice would give these kids a voice. Australia has thrown so much money away in asylum seeker legal fees, it seems unbelievable that this sort of very unfair situation is allowed to happen and that kids are at the mercy of a system that is supposed to have the "best interests of the children" as it's base, however, if there's no money it seems the children's best interest are no longer relevant.

So, the more I learn about our family legal system in this country, the more appalled I become. Surely the presumption of 50/50 shared care post separation which can be rebutted if abuse can be substantiated or an agreement by both parents would be a much fairer system for kids who generally want both parents significantly in their lives, even post separation.

Justice - I wonder what it really means...

 

[prawn_86]

In my World, Justice are a pair of banging French DJ's who smash out some awesome electro tunes

 

[Glen48]

Child support leads to about 3 Male suicides a day meaning kids don't grow up with a father, Taxpayer supports wayward kids.
The mother can tell the courts how many day the kids can be with the father the less days the more support she can receive. If you own a rental you can't claim it as deduction if you are a victim of CSA. if the father is getting legal aid and the mother applies the father gets kicked off the list so the Mother can apply.
The father is suppose to find and new House, partner and support the kids and make enough money to retire on and the more you earn the more CSA you pay. So many don't like a moving up the ladder at work so the business looses a good candidate.

. CSA applies until the child turns 18 or longer if the child goes to UNI.
Single women don't like men who have to pay CSA so it limits the market for the Father to start again.
Banks don't like CSA victims because they could be hauled in to court or their CSA is raised.
Getting married an kill you In Australia.

I read about a couple who were in a r.ship at a young age got married had kids and she left the marriage and reported him for under age sex many years ago he is now doing time.
One mans CSA payment paid for the ex wifes new lovers tattoo.

CSA cost the taxpayer more than it brings in.
Thats why it is know as Commonwealth Suicide Assistance
Women love CSA and therefore it can never be changed.

 

[Wysiwyg]

on one side is the cold, logical "shoot a rabid dog" mentality. on the other is the more amorphous emotional / compassionate considerations. as individuals we all fall somewhere along that spectrum, and laws reflect what most individuals agree upon.

The story about Australian Jock Palfreeman who was convicted of murdering a Bulgarian man and injuring another fits these two 'judgements'. The case of self defense versus intent to kill went in the favour of the Bulgarian family and countrymen because "their" view of justice was the only one that Bulgarians could accept. You and I would feel the same way if we were in their shoes.

In my understanding, provocation was a factor but going out prepared by carrying a knife for such possible encounters was very influential in the judgement. As far as an impartial judgement goes based on facts, well they are being examined now.

 

[tothemax6]

Child support leads to about 3 Male suicides a day meaning kids don't grow up with a father, Taxpayer supports wayward kids.
The mother can tell the courts how many day the kids can be with the father the less days the more support she can receive. If you own a rental you can't claim it as deduction if you are a victim of CSA. if the father is getting legal aid and the mother applies the father gets kicked off the list so the Mother can apply.
The father is suppose to find and new House, partner and support the kids and make enough money to retire on and the more you earn the more CSA you pay. So many don't like a moving up the ladder at work so the business looses a good candidate.

. CSA applies until the child turns 18 or longer if the child goes to UNI.
Single women don't like men who have to pay CSA so it limits the market for the Father to start again.
Banks don't like CSA victims because they could be hauled in to court or their CSA is raised.
Getting married an kill you In Australia.

I read about a couple who were in a r.ship at a young age got married had kids and she left the marriage and reported him for under age sex many years ago he is now doing time.
One mans CSA payment paid for the ex wifes new lovers tattoo.

CSA cost the taxpayer more than it brings in.
Thats why it is know as Commonwealth Suicide Assistance
Women love CSA and therefore it can never be changed.

I might have to leave this country and find a wife elsewhere.

Does anybody know of a country that isn't f-cked in the head?

 

[Glen48]

I would be getting out now while you still can and get out with some assets. Here women chase men and they are no women are right rules.

 

[Glen48]

Forgot to mention Pollies are exempt from paying CSA... they are saying its no good for them but ok for the rest.

 

[tothemax6]

I would be getting out now while you still can and get out with some assets. Here women chase men and they are no women are right rules.

Yes but I don't consider all women interchangeable, old chap . Otherwise I'd prob try to move to Japan (one of my favourite countries). Women over there are rather feminine also. A country where women chase men does make me envy you , it would be at lot less tiring.

 

[Knobby22]

I might have to leave this country and find a wife elsewhere.

Does anybody know of a country that isn't f-cked in the head?

Many countries with downtrodden women that you can exploit.
Go to Qatar and then your wife and all the kids have to walk 5 paces behind when you go to the mall.
Many of these countries also have your ideals of no universal healthcare, no old age pensions and monopolies that you believe in and don't waste money on parks, playgrounds, and anything else to help the poor.
See you!

 

[tothemax6]

Many countries with downtrodden women that you can exploit.
Go to Qatar and then your wife and all the kids have to walk 5 paces behind when you go to the mall.

Well aren't you twisted? Do you apply this rule of 'if you don't want water you must want fire', this binary thinking of yours, to other areas of life?
If what Glen has said about family law in Australia is true, it would take a very sick mind to believe there is nothing wrong here.

 

[Julia]

If what Glen has said about family law in Australia is true, it would take a very sick mind to believe there is nothing wrong here.

I don't think Knobby was at all saying that there's nothing wrong here. He simply offered you a suggestion of parts of the world which place men in a different position from that which they occupy here.

 

[Glen48]

Knobby
You need to open your mouth to change feet, I am the first to agree women are equal but not the first among equals and thats what the feds are doing supporting women before men.
Just the opposite to most Arab countries.
Most women in any country want security and if chasing a foreigner is that way they chose its their business and just like UK were women are leaving the marriage because the real estate portfolio has tank they can do what they like.
I fail to see why a court order forcing me to work with my ex as self employed having to pick her up from the new boy friend place and pay her CSA is not grounds to be unhappy with the system.
Why she can go out and start up her own business against me, under cut me and I have to pay her CSA.
Why paying her a lump sum as CSA so she could buy a car so her next boyfriend could wreck it while drunk and therefore not claim a payout is justice.
Sure you have playgrounds but come here and ask some parent who has buried their child because they didn't have $5 for a doctor visit or medicine which would they prefer a play ground which was over priced and paid for with some ones super or have their child back.
Most kids would be walking the street picking up tins and cardboard so they could get some thing to eat that night .
The only reason I am here is because TV news now looks a lot like TV news in the Movie " Wall Street" and I decided to leave a sinking ship.

You tell me who is being exploited?

 

[Knobby22]

Glen, I know where you are coming from and I agree the balance isn't always correct.
Men in our society tend to suffer more than women in divorce but not always.