|
Justice or the law what is more important?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dredd is the Law![^]
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Why have I know got this ditty stuck in my head?
Dredd is the law and the law won, Dredd is the law and the law won...
What is done cannot be undone, arrrrrrrrr!
Have you ever just looked at someone and knew the wheel was turning but the hamster was dead?
Trying to understand the behavior of some people is like trying to smell the color 9.
|
|
|
|
|
That guy that played Judge Dredd in that movie talks alot like the guy that plays McCoy in the last 2 Star Trek Movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
As both is human decision, both sucks...
I'm not questioning your powers of observation; I'm merely remarking upon the paradox of asking a masked man who he is. (V)
|
|
|
|
|
Kornfeld Eliyahu Peter wrote: As both is human decision, both sucks...
Amen!
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
They both go hand in hand.
BTW justice is - conformity to the law; legal validity. Without law, there is no justice 
|
|
|
|
|
So...is it justice that a rich person can buy a decision by affording expensive lawyers? (OJ Simpson, Strauss-Kahn, ...) Or by just paying to get out of court (Bernie Ecclestone, ...)
Law is not the same as justice: the law of many countries lets the guilty go free, or with a "slap on the wrist" when they deserve better justice.
You looking for sympathy?
You'll find it in the dictionary, between sympathomimetic and sympatric
(Page 1788, if it helps)
|
|
|
|
|
Agree with you. Though the law is like a rule which is applicable to every single person but in reality the justice does not go with it. Yes in today's world a rich does what you say.
|
|
|
|
|
OriginalGriff wrote: Law is not the same as justice: the law of many countries lets the guilty go free, or with a "slap on the wrist" when they deserve better justice.
Except of course justice is subjective. What is justice for one is injustice for another.
The law of course is dependent upon humans so it cannot and will not be perfect.
|
|
|
|
|
Wow, we have an amazingly uninformed group here this morning! By your reasoning, keeping black slaves in the US was entirely just, since the law said so. Imprisoning, starving, and beating American Indian children in the Indian Schools was just, as was stealing their parents' homelands and moving them off into arid, barren reservations, because the law said it was okay. Murdering women for the crime of being raped in the Middle East is just, because that's the law.
I've been through several law classes, and the first thing any law teacher tells a class is, don't ever confuse law with justice. One will rarely find both in a court room.
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes there were several injustice in the event you said. I believe the laws were altered over the time when corrections required or it's not right. On the other hand, the Justice depending on situations too and can over come the law in some cases. It's just my thought.
|
|
|
|
|
You bring tears to my eyes.
|
|
|
|
|
Probably just allergies... 
Will Rogers never met me.
|
|
|
|
|
Roger Wright wrote: By your reasoning, keeping black slaves ...
When one looks back one must look back at the entirety. Ignoring the entirety when examining the specific probably is not "just" no more so than a court that refuses to consider any mitigating circumstances.
Roger Wright wrote: and beating American Indian children in the Indian Schools
This of course is just one example of where one should at least consider the entirety. Beatings in school in many forms occurred in most if not all US schools for much of the US history. So to examine the justice in this case one would need to find comparable examples, look at the reasons for the discipline and determine if the discipline was extreme or comparable for the time. It is not sufficient to show for example that such students were beaten for something like using native american languages in classroom unless one can show that children in other parts of the nation were not beaten for similar transgressions.
Also one must consider that at least at one time even in the US even in the work place one might be beaten. Additionally even now there are states that do not ban corporal punishment in schools. In 2006 there were over 200,000 students who were subjected to corporal punishment in the US. (Although to be fair given the goal of the link below it is possible that the numbers might be less than authentic but I would suspect that it is still not zero.)
http://www.stophitting.com/index.php?page=statesbanning[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Ah, no.
Justice existed before the advent of civilization and law.
Law was meant to codify justice, but that has become perverted.
|
|
|
|
|
That is brilliant and true.
|
|
|
|
|
Remember laws can be unjust . Remember apartheid in South Africa? Laws can be used to enforce injustice. Justice is universal, laws are not.
|
|
|
|
|
Important in what sense?
The law ultimately affects the real world, justice is just a vague concept that isn't even the same for everyone (neither is the law, I suppose). But breaking the law is not by itself immoral, only the underlying act may or may not be, while injustice is almost always immoral (by definition, for some definitions of justice).
|
|
|
|
|
Laws are codifications of the Justice.
You cannot have fair justice without laws in a civil society.
I'd rather be phishing!
|
|
|
|
|
Maximilien wrote: in a civil society
... above a certain size.
|
|
|
|
|
Understanding.
Rules are created for a reason, not for blind enforcement. Rules will change over time.
Justice is an implementation of that ruleset. Your morals may utterly fail in a few centuries time though
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
