Defending the Truth

Ok fellas (and fellettes - if that be the feminine term)

I am not a lawyer and indeed i have no formal training in law.

Here's a sentence that popped into my head and i felt i should share it with y'all

" Retribution for Injustice comes in the form of Justice... not in the form of Venegance "

I hold the above statement to be a philosphical truth. My questions are:

1) Do you agree with the statement?
2) Is it a principle that is practiced in judicial systems around the world?
3) Is it a principle that is even POSSIBLE to apply practically?

Your thoughts please

Yes, I do agree with the statement, as do I'm sure most do. But where people differ is where they place the line between justice and vengeance, and that's probably a more important topic of philosophical discussion.

I would say generally, yes. Again, every nation's judicial system champions justice, it's just that some nations' ideas of "Justice" (North Korea for example), may be perceived as vengeance or cruel and unusual to others. But the idea of justice is still there.

I have some pretty limited experience in law (I took some courses in high school as well as partaking in mock trial competitions), but from what I learned, the Supreme Court has ruled in cases questioning capital punishment for minors and the mentally insane, that the bearing in which we measure 'cruel and unusual' depends on the current level of progression in today's society, and such punishments that are generally rejected by society's standards for retribution are to be determined as severe and therefore unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment of the US Constitution.

So I think the more important ethics question you should be asking is where we draw the line. The problem is that so many people differ especially in the case of capital punishment. If we were to determine whether execution is 'cruel and unusual' by the bearings we (Americans and the Supreme Court) measured it before when considering the execution of minors and the insane/retarded, then I think it would be generally ruled as vengeance and not justice; since the United States is (I believe) the last western post-industrial nation to uphold the death penalty.

So to answer your question I believe that it can be applied only by today's standards of ethics, which in itself if very arbitrary and elastic. So is the idea of justice something practical? Yes. But is the principle of true justice to be practically applied in the judicial system in all aspects? I would say a soft no. Generally speaking we can, and do; but in all reality morals are relative, and to some people certain perceived 'justice' is really vengeance.

You also have the problem in law of the idea of deterrence. Retribution is only half of the equation. Many of the world's judicial system is set up on a basis of retribution and deterrence. The former being punishment and the latter being so that others are discouraged of committing the said crime. I personally believe that once the judicial balance is more geared toward deterrence, that punishments are more cruel and unusual and are more considered 'vengeance'.

I disagree. Justice is a form of vengeance. Vengeance is a punishment in retribution for something. Justice is deserved punishment in retribution for wrongdoing.

All justice is vengeance.
Not all vengeance is justice.

Vengeance is justice only when the vengeance is deserved.

Justice systems try to make sure the criminal deserves his punishment. There are few people who would intentionally be too harsh. They think they're being fair.

But in some situations, I do feel that judicial systems issue punishments too harsh for the crime. Punishment for drug use, sex offenses, prostitution, and speeding come to mind.

When you say "retribution for injustice should come in the form of justice", you're really just saying that the punishment should fit the crime: it shouldn't be too harsh.

I think it is very practical to apply this principle, so long as the people making our laws understand it.

In order to make this work, one would have to define justice and vengence and then make distictions between the two.

Simply put, I am asking you to define your terms and point out the differences.

Excellent guy.. thanks for responding.

I'll tell you a bit about where this came from. I found myself asking that when somebody advocates harsher punishments for XYZ crime, then is it an increase in justice? Or is it just an increase in collective venegance.

Jax i disagree with you. Justice is not supposed to be venegance. it is supposed to be about righting the wrong. And as far as i understand, righting the wrong is an action independent of any punitive measures taken in retribution.

Punishment has the purpose of deterring future criminals. It actually does nothing to right the wrong committed.

And that is essentially why this thought came to my mind. In many judicial systems nowadays, too much stress is put on the punitive aspect of jurisprudence, whereas restitution has taken a back seat. Trials are no longer about who is supposed to get their right.. It has become about who gets punished.

And i think that totally winds up missing the point of a judicial system.

the way many governments tout their harsher punishments as victories of "justice" completely misses the point. Harsher punishments only means that the collective punishes people more (greater venegance) but it has absolutely no affect on restoration of a victim's rights.


I dunno if i mange to make myself clear, but my ontention is this. The importance given to punishment for transgression diverts the attention away from what really matters. What really matters is whether people get what is their right. Once their right is secured, then one may discuss whether punitive actions will change the behavior of the trasgressor. Fact is that the punitive measures installed today are more likely to turn a criminal into a hardened one.