Justice, or, the rule of law? Which is more important to you?

AskMyChocolate

I'm going to go for justice.

And, that celery,apple, and walnut salad, that I can't make at home, because I'd just be left with a shedload of apples, walnuts, and celery.

I live in a bed-sit.:(

But, stew re-heats. \o/

El Guapo!

What the fúck are you on about??

Kylo Ren

What the ****.

privacyconcern

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I'm going to go for justice.

And, that celery,apple, and walnut salad, that I can't make at home, because I'd just be left with a shedload of apples, walnuts, and celery.

I live in a bed-sit.:(

But, stew re-heats. \o/

Justice is derived from the limits of The Law. These two concepts are inseperable if you want to keep fully legal.

AngryBollix

I like cake

mysteries1984

Isn't that basically a Waldorf salad?

Johro

Dean09 wrote: »

What the fúck are you on about??

Ask his chocolate.

Seachmall

I would choose justice over law.

But I'd expect Gardai, Judges, etc. to choose law over justice, and rightly so.

Johro

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

I'm going to go for justice.

And, that celery,apple, and walnut salad, that I can't make at home, because I'd just be left with a shedload of apples, walnuts, and celery.

I live in a bed-sit.:(

But, stew re-heats. \o/

And grapes. Tbh, you don't need a 'shedload' to make a Waldorf salad. Don't forget the mayo.

steddyeddy

privacyconcern wrote: »

Justice is derived from the limits of The Law. These two concepts are inseperable if you want to keep fully legal.

Well I value my sense of justice over he law usually. Justice to me is equal rights yet the law in africa promoted segregation. So justice isnt always derived from the limits of law, sometimes justice exceeds the law.

Seachmall

AskMyChocolate wrote: »

And, that celery,apple, and walnut salad, that I can't make at home, because I'd just be left with a shedload of apples, walnuts, and celery.

Just because you have justice doesn't mean you have law?

Or

Are you drunk?

bnt

Justice is not consistent from person to person - so we need laws to standardise "justice" to reasonable levels. I might think it's "justice" to throw someone under a train for trying to steal my wallet, while someone else might call that a tad excessive ... :eek:

Sindri

The rule of law being the letter of the law?


I think all of us would prefer justice, particularly in relation to anything we feel aggrieved about or any transgression committed against our person.


Some laws though or in some instances, discretion in passing judgement and penalising crimes can be acceptable depending on the situation, and at other times it can be farcical.


The problem I would have would be with antiquated or ineffective laws.

strobe

mysteries1984 wrote: »

Isn't that basically a Waldorf salad?

Sorry sir... I think we might have just run out of waldorfs...

Could I interest you in a Ritz salad instead? It's basically apples, grapefruit and potatoes in a mayonnaise sauce, very popular around here.

Chuck Stone

Some laws are dumb and deserve to be ridiculed and ignored.

Captain Morgan Freeman

Justice is subjective and differs from person to person. What one person sees as justice another person would find unreasonable. An example would be the cancelation of Galway rag week, getting it cancelled is justice for the residents of Galway city while getting it going again would be seen as justice for the students.
This is why we have laws in the first place, to eliminate subjective opinion when making a decision.

MUSEIST

Justice obviously.


There are many laws which are not just.

johnr1

Depends which side I'm on.

If I shag some guys gf, justice is that he kicks the **** out of me with no consequences to him. I prefer the law there, so he'l get fined, made pay compensation etc.

Now on the other hand, if he were to shag my gf..... In that case I'd be all for justice.


I love double standards, but only when they benefit me

policarp

Shoot first and ask questions later. Nally theory.

The only good injun is a dead injun. John Wayne theory.

Justice is for those with the law on their side.

Frank Black

The rule of law should be just.

You shouldn't have to choose between them.

Captain Morgan Freeman

black francis wrote: »

The rule of law should be just.

You shouldn't have to choose between them.

Not really. While Laws are set in stone the idea of justice can vary from person to person. Usually the person on the wrong side of the law will find that law unjust.

Seachmall

black francis wrote: »

The rule of law should be just.

You shouldn't have to choose between them.

The rule of law can't always be just.

It's constrained by limitations such as evidence and juries.

If I kill a man and there's no evidence or reason to believe I did it it would be unlawful to lock me up but it would be just.

Likewise if there's plenty of evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I did it but the jury, of their own free will, found me not guilty it would be unlawful to lock me up but would be just*.

*Whether or not it would be just goes back to CMF's point (above) in that what's Justice or not is not absolute, but for this point assume it would be.

Frank Black

Captain Morgan Freeman wrote: »

Not really. While Laws are set in stone the idea of justice can vary from person to person. Usually the person on the wrong side of the law will find that law unjust.

Laws aren't set in stone - they change all the time to reflect societies morality (or sense of justice) for example decriminalization of homosexuality or the home defense bill.

Frank Black

Seachmall wrote: »

The rule of law can't always be just.

It's constrained by limitations such as evidence and juries.

If I kill a man and there's no evidence or reason to believe I did it it would be unlawful to lock me up but it would be just.

True, but it would be unjust to lock up an innocent man if there wasn't the evidence to convict him - this is a reflection of the aspiratiions of the concept of justice in the law.

Seachmall

black francis wrote: »

True, but it would be unjust to lock up an innocent man if there wasn't the evidence to convict him - this is a reflection of the aspiratiions of the concept of justice in the law.

Yep. Unless we can find an absolutely perfect way to identify guilt or innocence the law will always fall short of justice.

Frank Black

Seachmall wrote: »

Yep. Unless we can find an absolutely perfect way to identify guilt or innocence the law will always fall short of justice.

And that's never going to happen - so in the absence of such a means of absolutely establishing guilt or innocence, the laws have been determined with the concept of justice - like 'innocent until proven guilty'.

Though they may sometimes arrive at an incorrect answer it's not the same as saying the laws themselves are unjust.

Captain Morgan Freeman

black francis wrote: »

Laws aren't set in stone - they change all the time to reflect societies morality (or sense of justice) for example decriminalization of homosexuality or the home defense bill.

That wasn't my point. The idea of law is the same for everyone(don't steal, don't kill) and there is no arguing against the law. That is what i meant by set in stone as everyone knows the law and is compelled to abide by it. We need a set of rules to follow rather then what we feel is just.

However the idea of justice differs from person to person. Take the Galway Rag week example from my earlier post. Residents of Galway see it as just that rag week was cancelled however students of Galway would see it as just that rag week be brought back.

When people define justice they take their personal feelings into account. Law however does not include peoples personal feelings, in most cases you have either broken the law or not broken it.

If we just relied on justice all the time instead of law the world would fall into chaos.

Frank Black

Captain Morgan Freeman wrote: »

That wasn't my point. The idea of law is the same for everyone(don't steal, don't kill) and there is no arguing against the law. That is what i meant by set in stone as everyone knows the law and is compelled to abide by it. We need a set of rules to follow rather then what we feel is just.

However the idea of justice differs from person to person. Take the Galway Rag week example from my earlier post. Residents of Galway see it as just that rag week was cancelled however students of Galway would see it as just that rag week be brought back.

When people define justice they take their personal feelings into account. Law however does not include peoples personal feelings, in most cases you have either broken the law or not broken it.

If we just relied on justice all the time instead of law the world would fall into chaos.

Well, it depends if you define 'justice' as an individual interpretation, which as you've admitted would lead to chaos.

I see 'justice' as more of a societal aspiration.

lividduck

privacyconcern wrote: »

Justice is derived from the limits of The Law. These two concepts are inseperable if you want to keep fully legal.

Bollox! A thing can be lawful without being just.

Einhard

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I value my sense of justice over he law usually. Justice to me is equal rights yet the law in africa promoted segregation. So justice isnt always derived from the limits of law, sometimes justice exceeds the law.

It works both ways though: in the American South in the first half of the last century, white justice promoted lynching of blacks when it was against the law to do so.

steddyeddy

Einhard wrote: »

It works both ways though: in the American South in the first half of the last century, white justice promoted lynching of blacks when it was against the law to do so.

Sorry I should have phrased it better. I should have worded it "Not all laws are just".

Seanchai

privacyconcern wrote: »

Justice is derived from the limits of The Law. These two concepts are inseperable

Utter nonsense. To take one of innumerable instances, is it just that retired politicians can be on pensions of €100,000 after serving 4 years as a government minister, and receive that pension each year after leaving government at, say, 35 years of age, when ordinary people receive a fraction of that from the age of 65?

Legal, certainly. But just: equally certainly not.

im invisible

privacyconcern

steddyeddy wrote: »

Well I value my sense of justice over he law usually. Justice to me is equal rights yet the law in africa promoted segregation. So justice isnt always derived from the limits of law, sometimes justice exceeds the law.

False. From a purley legal point of view, the highest Law of the Land, The Constitution, derives it's supreme power from natural rights, which are arguably more important than any piece of legislation passed by cretins in favour for Corporations.

Therefore, Justice is a consequence of the Constitution. Without it, you would not have justice. Assuming you want to stay legal. I don't agree with taking the law into your own hands and all that crack.