Essay on Justice

📌Category: Behavior, Psychology
📌Words: 1019
📌Pages: 4
📌Published: 15 January 2022

When asked what “justice” is, it depends on who you are asking, “justice” is a subjective concept that can be viewed through many different lenses that perspectives to what justice really is (What are Justice and Social Justice, p. 2).  Justice is interpreted by each individual person and has been put into action through the criminal justice system. Each person and states have their own idea of what “justice” means and what it looks like. Although each entity believes in the idea of justice and that it is important, it is not uniform across all jurisdictions. “Justice” can be derived from many theories and way of viewing criminal acts, including the harm principle, these theories support why a State enacts certain laws and why they criminalize specific act. The interpretation of what justice is and how it works is essential for how a criminal justice system forms their laws and adjudicates wrong doers.

When a society or nation is forming their legal code, they ask themselves, what is “wrong”, what actions are criminal and in what cases can the government interfere with a person’s freedom to bring good to the society. This process is based on morals and what is “just”.  Perhaps the term “just” is easier to define than what justice is. “Just” is “based on or behaving according to what is morally right and fair” (Fowler, n.d.).  States keep this in mind when forming what they find to be morally acceptable in their society. When someone criminalizes an action, they are saying that the action is morally wrong, meaning it is unjust. So now considering what justice is, we use “just” as the backbone of the meaning.  As stated above, “justice” is subjective and therefore can have many interpretations. While there are many different interpretations of justice and not all are the same, there are often two sides of justice that can be seen within the criminal justice system. First, justice is seen from the society meaning holding those convicted of morally wrong acts accountable. The other side of justice is in the eyes of the wrong doers which would be that justice is for them to maintain all their natural rights through the criminal justice process (this would include due process in the United States) (What are Justice and Social Justice, p. 23).  These two concepts can be broken into retributive justice and the latter being procedural justice, two of many different ideas of what justice is and how it is used in the criminal justice system.   

Justice may be a hard concept to define but justice itself defines the criminal justice system. Without a government deciding upon what justice truly is, they would not have a criminal justice system. Crimes are subjective to those who enforce them. An act is not criminal without it being decided so through legal codes and laws. A group must first decide what they see as just, or morally acceptable, then they must enact laws that ensure the wellbeing of society by criminalizing acts that put it at jeopardy. Although criminal codes aim to bring safety and control to the group, the laws cannot interfere with personal rights and freedoms. The equilibrium between the good for the group and the good for the people and between the two lays justice. 

There are multiple approaches to finding, or deciding, where justice sits between individual rights and public safety through theories of justice. These theories outline how framers or those making criminal codes think and how they act when forming laws. Starting with utilitarianism, which is a concept at the foundation of what we discussed thus far, is the overall good of the society and general happiness of the group. Others choose to believe in libertarianism that enforces the idea that justice is rooted in liberty, meaning the government should adopt a hands-off approach (What Are Justice and Social Justice, p. 9-11). Another approach would be egalitarianism which deal with equality for all. Finally, there are virtue-based theories that are based on virtue and morality, another topic discussed previously. Each theory develops an important school of thought for how the criminal justice system works and operates on the foundation of justice. 

The harm principle is a concept of not allowing the state to interject themselves unless their interjection protects others from harm. This concept in relation to justice means that the state cannot inflict sanctions for criminal action unless the action directly inflicts harm on another person (Holtug 2002). Using the harm principles clouds the already muddy water surrounding justice. If governments were to enact criminal codes while utilizing the harm principle, they would greatly limit their actions and availability to act. This could potentially lead to a narrower view of what is a criminal act and what is not. When using strict interpretation of the harm principle all victimless crimes would not be criminalized. This would include crimes such as recreational drug use, prostitution, and other crimes that we would consider morally wrong. A liberal interpretation of the harm principle could lead to a broader interpretation of what a criminal act is through a government hands-off approach. Utilizing the harm principle when framing a justice system would lead to allowing all people to do whatever they wish if their actions do not harm other people. 

As shown above the principle of justice is subjective and is at the discretion of who you are asking and what government entity is creating a criminal code. The idea of justice is the backbone of the criminal justice system. Justice defines what is morally wrong, or criminal, and acts that are morally just, or ones that do not lead to interference of the government. There are many definitions of justice and different schools of thought to produce what justice is and means. One of these processes is the harm principle. The harm principle criminalizes any action that causes harm to others. This principle allows multiple interpretations within itself between liberal and utilitarian perspectives (Holtug 2002). Each school of thought and ways to think of justice are both valid and have their flaws. Justice is difficult to define because each person can define it differently. The concept of justice relates to how a government defines and criminalizes acts. Each nation and jurisdiction can define what they see as criminal and how they sanction such behavior. While there are multiple sides to justice as well, it truly depends on who you are asking and what circumstances they are in. Justice is seen differently across time and place meaning it there is no definitive answer as to what justice truly is.

+
x
Remember! This is just a sample.

You can order a custom paper by our expert writers

Order now
By clicking “Receive Essay”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement. We will occasionally send you account related emails.