Critically discuss different possible meanings of justice

As master copy W mature commented in that location is non satisfactory translation of arbiter. What is considered ripe in a detail case is what appears conscionable by a honourable man. Similarly, the thing that appears reasonable to a reasonable man would be considered as reasonable. However, some volume may foresee referee as applying the same rules in the same manner to all(a) give tongue to. In early(a) course, treating similar cases a kindred. But w and then again, this could identicalwise lead in retributoryness. Because people admit varied definitions of justice, the issues of beauteousness and impactity aid support the concept.This shows the link surrounded by rectifyfulness and justice. However, it helps identify miscarriages of justice where people argon wrongly convicted of criminal offences. Aristotle who was an ancient elucidateic philosopher, was one of the first to put ahead his look on. His theory was that a just rightfulness is one th at would enable people to effectuate themselves in conjunction. Meaning the guard should produce justice. This made him differentiate the concept into both types distri unlessive and markive justice. Distri only whenive justice is the allocation of as chastises with the thoughtl of achieving proportion consort to each individuals claim.You green goddess read alsoJustice System Position piece of musicIn other words, all benefits and burdens should be distri stilled fairly. On the other hand, corrective justice is when soul disappoints distributive justice, they should accordingly be corrected. One could oppose distributive justice by some wrongdoing. This could thence be corrected by courts, prisons, injunctions etc. The principal(prenominal) aim of this is to redistribute the assets, which then leads to a fair system. However, on that point argon to a greater extent varied theories on the analogyship between uprightness and justice. For instance, the theory of nat ural equity and utilitarianism.The theory of natural rightfulness is an idea that all police force is ultimately derived from a divine source which is higher than a man made police force. Aristotle call backd that this higher law was derived from nature. However, St. Thomas Aquinas believed that this higher law was derived from God. Therefore each law that is against the gentleman good or even against Gods get appear is non true law and should not be adhered to. But then this delegacy that natural law theorist would not plunk for by the profound rules of the realm as these ar not Gods rules. But, in actual fact they should be obeyed, as not doing so would result in social disorders winning business office.The theory of utilitarianism takes a look at familiarity as a whole nation, not an individual. The principal(prenominal) proponents of this theory atomic number 18 John Stuart donkeywork and Jeremy Bentham. They believe that a law is just if it benefits the maj ority of the people even if it results with wickedness for the minority. Proponents do not however deplete a look at the law, but also take into circumstance the yield of the law to see if the eruptcome is just towards federation for the greater number. If a law benefits much people at bottom fellowship than what it harms, then this would be grapplen as just in the eyes of utilitarianism proponents.The reproach of the utilitarianism approach is that it focuses on justice for the rules of order as a whole, but what is to run a risk with the one who doesnt attain justice callable to the majority. Doesnt that individual obtain a right to justice and a fair examination? For example, in the case of R V Brown (how? ) Furthermore, there are more theories on the economic view of law and justice like economic analysis, Rawls theory, Nozick and the marginal state, Karl Marx and lastly Hans Kelsen. Economic analysis is a theory that works on the arse that e trulything has a financial value.Regardless if you are buying something, or if you are sell it, it still has a financial value. The primary(prenominal) conflict is the balance between the involve of the society and the take of the individual. This is a very similar theory to that of the utilitarianism. For example, if a everyday practitioner would have to pay i500,000 for the running(a) ser wickednesss in order to consort on an individual, who would he operate on the one who has a career profound condition which would use closely of the work out up, or one whose condition is not life threatening and wouldnt use most of the budget up?For this scenario to be fair, I feel that regardless of the financial value, if the practitioner is able to declare oneself the service he should do so. This is because it erects more of a just manner as someone who was of an amphetamine class would still require the operation and change the outcome of a life threatening to a non-life threatening. Ones fin ancial billet should not intervene of the law acting fair and just to an individual. Jhon Rawls theory was that the society should decide and blueprint a set of conventions which is just for the greater good of society.This way, the g all overnment activity as easy as society know that these laws bequeath be adhered to, and looked up to. This is because they are the laws which society produce and are more imaginary for the majority than having level-headed laws by the government. By designing a set of principles, the society would have to reduce their position inside society. For example, the rich, poor, disabled, young, old etc. However, this could be a disadvantage as the rich would design principles that favour them and vice versa for the poor. Those who are not disabled would design laws to suit their needs, not taking into consideration the needs of the disabled.But then it was argued that the authorized position one is meant to be in at the time of setting the princi ples, they should be s passelty from personal bias and take the needs of the society into consideration, without cosmos selfish and feel at only their needs. However, this could be a limitation as some of society may feel that they were the least advantaged of the group. This would then lead to a disagreement of a set of elemental rights and principles, which each particle would find acceptable for their own requirements.He argues that there are two basic principles first one being that a set of liberties would be available to all, like freedom of thought, speech and conscience. But then it would be compromised to abide the needs of the greater good. For example, because of having the commonplaces interest to consider, you would disregard a perilous criminal their right to liberty. The second principle being that each individual should have equal opportunity as well as equal distribution. Rawls considers equality as in the distribution of wealthiness. Inequality is only al lowed to help the mast disadvantaged.These principles could then be argued as it does not state what is meant by fair, as this could mean it also does not outline or give a interpretation as to what the basic rights and principles are of a human being. Could the basic right and principles be to have food and shelter on their plate, or would it be to have the freedom of speech etc. Nozick and the minimal state, is roughly how the state should have a stripped interference in peoples lives, following a just society. The state should restrict to provide society with the basic needs like protecting one from theft or force.He felt up that if ones property or wealth is licitly and fairly obtained, then it is yours to keep. Property can be legitimately and fairly obtained in 3 ways just acquisition like acquire something healthyly, just transfer like acquire something from another legally, and lastly just chastisement following an unjust acquisition like returning stolen property to its rightful owner. Nozick does not look at how wealth should be redistributed to gain equality but in fact if you have bring home the bacon something legally and fairly, it is yours to keep.He does not believe in the fact that property can be owned by the State, but it is owned by the individual. The main objurgation for this theory is that it states that people, who dont have wealth, should not be helped from the state. If this was to become the reality, how do individuals be nail for a good job, if capital personnel casualty is there to prevent them? Karl Marx theory is that the law and legal system should intervene in the life of society to redistribute the wealth amongst all.He thought that wealth and property should all be distributed in pact with ones capacity and needs. This is because Marx rejected capitalism and felt that it was unjust to the society by having it utilize within the law. He feels that within a capitalist society all law is unjust. This is because it repre directs the means by which one class oppresses the class or classes below it. Therefore, their view is to redistribute the wealth equally within society regardless of ones financial shape. As illustrated by the Soviet Union of the problems of communism. noble justices are the mechanisms put in place to try and support a just society. It would be satisfied by the unvarying and impartial application of rules and procedures without questioning the fairness and rightness of the outcome. These mechanisms within the legal status sire sure that everyone is minded(p) equal intercession no one is at a disadvantage than the other. The manner of interpretation and applying rules of law and enforcing decisions can be seen as formal justice. Therefore, equality in treatment is preserved.The Police and Criminal Evidence incite 1984 state the police powers and instructions for how a public place should carry out their duties creating fairness and consistent acts. For example, whe n a suspect is being interviewed within a police interview room, whatever activities are carried out within the room are declared to the tape. So, if someone came in showing secernate, it willing be stated who came in and what evidence was found. This will occur with all people who are being interviewed. Similarly, if someone had been stop and searched, the police would have to ensure that they meet the requirements to stop and search.By having these procedures for the public permission to meet, it ensures the fairness within society will be gived and maintained. In other words, people would abide by them which will create fairness within society do the outcome correct or right for society. By allowing individuals access to legal advice and repre displaceation, prevents grafting from occurring. In other words, by having someone present at the time of being questioned, the defendant could bribe public authority to acquit them. This then leads to an unfair rivulet which is not c onsistent and adherent to the rules.However, if a solicitor was present at the time, and there were recordings of the activities which took place during the room, it would be explicit as to whether bribery was taking place, if so, defendant can be prosecuted. By allowing the same rules applying to all individuals. The case of R V Thames Magistrates speak to Ex parte Polemis, illustrates that the defendant was not given enough time to prepare for his defence. This is because he was told the day before that he was payable in court the following day. He also did not understand the language, thus could not turn up in court.This could seem as unfair if the adjudicate were to prosecute him for this. Lastly, by having the discriminative review, the resolve are able to review the decisions of politicians and the public officials. They decide whether the politician was within their rights to state or make that decision. However, the disadvantage is that they do not examine the merits o f the decision as to what he impact will be on the society. By having a judicial review, it prevents politicians from making their own decisions for their own purposes without taking the interest of society into consideration.On the other hand strong justice is the mechanisms that the legal system has in place to provide a just outcome. For example, the judicial precedent. This is when decide treat like cases alike. This moves away from fertilisation precedent like overruling, distinguishing etc. Here, the principle of stare decisis is implemented. This is a policy of the courts to abide by the principles set out in previous cases like the Cunningham case for subjectively recklessness. It is also when the decision or manage to a question is answered by the valuate from a lower court it followed by to the rest of the courts.Another mechanism for substantive justice would be the sentencing. There are various aims of sentencing, but are they utilise correctly within society and allocated for the correct offences. For example within the summer riots, a women was sent to jail for 5 months for treatment stolen goods, when she received then, having slept through the riots in which they were taken. Would this be considered as fair and just if she did not in actual fact buy the goods, or have any relation to it, except for the fact that she was handed over them the following day.Another example of sentencing within the summer riots is when a man was sent for imprisonment for 4 years for neb messages on Facebook encouraging the riots. Would this be considered as fair for the defendant, in other words would he gain anything from being sent to prison? The answer to this would be no, this is because if he had a community sentence, he would know a lot more nearly his community and therefore able to make a difference. As illustrated by Gilbert, the earnestness of the criminality must be matched with the unassumingness of the penalty.Meaning, the type of crime the y committed, the sentence should be equivalents and a penalty from which they can learn from their mistakes. To conclude this, as stated from the above, there are various definitions to justice hence there is a problem of defining it. To gain perfect justice with any legal system is impossible. However, every legal system tries their utmost best to strain justice for each individual. Aiming to treat them and happen upon a fair and just solution. This showing that there is a relationship between the two historically and theoretically.