What Is The Difference Between Justice And Revenge

[nailit]

Always a lot of talk on AB about prisons been soft/prisons are hell.
Bring back hanging/ don't bring back hanging
eye for an eye/there always mitigating circumstances
etc
SO, just what is the difference between justice and the desire fore revenge?
Is an objective view re: punishment for offenders even possible?

[Baldric]

The view of the victim will always differ with the view of the perpetrator.

[mikey4444]

Nailit......There is no room in the legal process for revenge ....its all about justice being done and being seen to be done.

Its up to the Court system to remain objective, and largely, I think they get it right.

[EDDIE51]

I am certain that the death sentence is never more than revenge by society. It has never deterred a single murder .
Just look at the comments on here every time there is a particularly nasty murder for proof that is is only about revenge.
There will be a few along in a minute or so!

[nailit]

//The view of the victim will always differ with the view of the perpetrator.//
putting aside our differences Baldric, That is a very good point.

[Tilly2]

Justice is to do with fairness and impartiality. Desire for revenge is not.

[Baldric]

Eddie, I remain unconvinced one way or the other, so what gives you the Moral High Ground?

[nailit]

//Its up to the Court system to remain objective, and largely, I think they get it right.//
Even if at one time the courts sentenced people to hard labour for been homosexual Mikey?
Or fining people for having an addiction nowadays?

[mikey4444]

Eddie isn't taking the "moral high ground" but responding to Nailit's post in the same way as everybody else.

[mikey4444]

nailit....the Court can only work with the laws of the time. They must uphold the rule of law.

[nailit]

Dang!! Just got a call, gotta go out. Back in a bit.

[Baldric]

That is your opinion Mikey, to which of course you are entitled.

[jno]

perhaps it would be fairer to say it's about the law being enforced impartially. Parliament are responsible for the law, including requiring hard labour for gays.

The point of the law is to replace revenge. In the Middle Ages law was pretty much private and based on vendettas: you killed someone, his brother would come after you. This led to more or less anarchy. Eventually, a centralised monarchy tried to standardise this on the grounds of imposing the "king's peace". The king appointed judges, sheriffs and so on to administer it all across the country. The idea was to make justic a public thing, not a private one. It's fairly uniform now, with tight sentencing restrictions, though it's taken several centuries to get where we are now.

[nailit]

As was said earlier the views of the victim (and by extension, those that sympathise with the victim) will always differ with those of the perpetrator (and by extension, those that sympathise with the perpetrator) so what is *objective* when there are differing points of view. Isnt it all subjective?
And what about a victimless crime? Someone grows a few cannabis plants for there own (sometimes medicinal) use and yet society punishes them for growing a plant? Wheres the objectivity in that? Is it just or is it revenge for growing something for ones own personal use?

[andy-hughes]

nailit - // Wheres the objectivity in that? Is it just or is it revenge for growing something for ones own personal use? //

The objectivity comes in when the sentence is passed down for growing cannabis, which is against the law. The reasons are where emotions and circumstances come in - but the law takes no account of those.

It can't - to function properly, the law has to be impartial, it reacts to the crime, not the reasons behind the crime.

[douglas9401]

Who wants to mention mitigation?

[nailit]

//The objectivity comes in when the sentence is passed down for growing cannabis, which is against the law.//

Which is my point andy! Who decides what is objective/subjective law?
It was against the law at one time to be a practicing homosexual, now we see such a law as been backward and barbaric. Might we at one point in the future see it as been backward and barbaric to demonize people who choose to smoke weed?

[nailit]

//Who wants to mention mitigation? //
Well I for one have been thankful for a bit of mitigation when in front of the beaks Douglas ;-)

[woofgang]

maybe we will....but until then the law is the law.

[New Judge]

In a society that has a justice system the individual forfeits the right to exact justice on those that have transgressed upon him (which would, by most definitions, be “revenge”) and instead concedes that task to the State. The State passes laws through its Parliament and the justice system administers the laws.

“Even if at one time the courts sentenced people to hard labour for been homosexual Mikey

You’re becoming a bit confused, nailit. The purpose of the courts is to apply the law as determined by Parliament. It is not for them to have a view of the justification or morality of the laws that are passed. Nor is it within their remit to query the severity or leniency of the sentences available - although for most legislation the law only lays down maximum sentences. The sentencing guidelines provide assistance on sentencing levels to accommodate the various seriousness of the offence. But within this framework judges and magistrates have considerable discretion to vary the sentences as circumstances dictate.

[douglas9401]

"What Is The Difference Between Justice And Revenge"

Distance?