What justice is

Socrates: What would you say justice is?

Me: By definition, justice is a process in which what is just is administered and maintained and this is achieved through assigning punishments to those who engage in conduct that is regarded as unjust. For justice to be administered there must therefore be some form of rules that are used to determine what is unjust and why it is inappropriate. Other than laws, there must also be guidelines to follow in the case where one engages in unjust ways because, for there to be true justice, there must be equal punishments to punish those who are unjust. Justice is therefore a process of ensuring that people conform to the set policies that determine truth, reason and facts within the community.

Socrates: By your definition, the process of justice must follow a set of laws that determine what is right from what is wrong, correct?

Me: Yes. The right or wrongness of an act has to be evaluated and assessed to determine if the act broke any laws that resulted to some form of injustice to the person or people affected by the act in question.

Socrates: Who bears the responsibility of setting these laws and guidelines?

Me: The laws are set in place by the government. They determine what is unjust and how to go about punishing those responsible for breaking the law. Community leaders are also responsible for setting laws that will govern the community and these are implemented in together with the laws set by the government.

Socrates: when it comes to setting laws, is it the entire community and the government that sets the laws or is there a system?

Me: There are specific offices in the government tasked with the responsibility of adjusting, making and implementing laws. As for the community, there are special groups selected to make laws that are tailored for the needs of the community as well as its people.

Socrates: Since only select members are involved, would it not be correct to state that justice is a form of personal opinion?

Me: It is not a matter of personal opinion because the laws are put through a process that assesses whether the laws are beneficial and have the interests of the entire community, and even the country, in mind. It would be impossible to give everyone an opportunity to contribute to the law making process as this would take a lot of time to weigh everyone’s opinion. Since the representatives are selected by the community, they have the authority to discuss laws that look to help the people they represent as well as ensure that justice is maintained.

Socrates: You mentioned about how justice involves equally punishing those who are unjust?

Me: Correct. For justice to be delivered, those who engage in unjust acts must be punished equally.

Socrates: If justice involves punishing the unjust, isn’t it then a form of revenge?

Me: Not necessarily. The reason justice exists is to prevent people from pursuing vengeance. When one is wronged, it is human nature to seek compensation, and in some cases, vengeance. To prevent people from taking matters in their own hands, the justice system ensures that there is equal compensation and punishment whenever an unjust act is committed.

Socrates: what then differentiates punishment through justice from vengeance?

Me: Justice follows a set of guidelines set specifically to determine the punishment for unjust acts. Furthermore, justice is delivered by organizations such as courts and council of elders. The victim of the unjust act only makes his case and waits for justice to be delivered.

Socrates: So the only thing that separates justice from vengeance is that the victim does not enact the punishment on their own, is that correct?

Me: In a way, yes. But it is much more complicated than that. There are incidences where the victim is incapable or unwilling to seek compensation. In such times, the court may take matters into its own hand to ensure that the unjust person is punished especially if they engaged in illegal acts. The court is therefore not acting on behalf of the victim but rather for the sake of justice. The court tries to fulfill its obligation by not only ensuring that those who break the law are punished but also discourages others from engaging in unjust conduct.

Socrates: But there are instances where the court acts on behalf of the victim, correct?

Me: Yes, in most instances, the court acts on behalf of the victims to ensure the process of delivering justice is smooth and fair.

Socrates: In such cases, would it not then be correct to say the court enacts vengeance on behalf of the victim?

Me: I do not believe so. The aim of the court is to maintain justice. Not to punish those who commit crimes. However, for there to be justice, unjust acts must be canceled out and this is achieved through punishments and fines. The guilty person must be made to pay for the unjust act so as to take away the benefits presented by the unjust act as well as the harm caused to the victim. Justice is not about punishing those who do wrong but rather ensuring that justice is maintained by whatever means necessary.

Socrates: According to your argument, the court does not enact vengeance on behalf of the victim even when the victim requests the services of the court to punish someone who engages in an unjust act like murder. Correct?

Me: Yes, the court only delivers justice and for that to happen, some form of punishment is issued to ensure that the unjust act is canceled out.

Socrates: If we follow the same argument, would it not be correct to state that hiring a hit man to kill someone who murdered your loved one is justice and not vengeance? Keep in mind that the victim does not take revenge on his own but rather pays someone else to do it. The same way the victim would seek the services of the court and pay a lawyer for representation.

Me: There is a difference in that the court has been given authority to govern over cases that involve unjust actions. Hit men on the other hand have no authority nor do they follow a code of conduct. Unlike hit men, the court focuses on delivering justice. It not only listens to the victim but also gives the suspect a chance to make their case. Hit men only listen to the victim and carry out the act of vengeance as requested. Justice is not about payback but rather about balancing the scale between good and evil.

Socrates: Is it not then correct to assume that justice is unjust?

Me: In what sense?

Socrates: Let us focus on an unjust act like murder. In some cases, the punishment for murder is death. Since delivering justice involves taking another person’s life, doesn’t it then mean that delivering justice involves engaging in unjust acts?

Me: no it does not.

Socrates: Is killing someone a just act?

Me: Yes it is.

Socrates: Why then does killing someone in the name of delivering justice is not treated the same as murder?

Me: The difference lies in the intent and not the end result. The guilty person decided to kill for personal gain. In the case of the court, the punishment, whether by death or another form of punishment, is done as a duty. The court does not benefit in any way but rather ensures that those who engage in unjust ways are punished. The drive behind the act is what makes justice just, even if the methods used may be unethical.

Socrates: So basically the court gets to decide what is just and what is unjust. It also determines what punishment is acceptable and all this is done in the name of delivering justice?

Me: Correct

Socrates: When dealing with an unjust act, is the act unjust on its own or because the court deems it so?

Me: An unjust act is wrong on its own even without the court’s intervention. There are already laws and policies to determine what is right from what is not. The court only assesses the severity of an unjust act, what law it broke and the appropriate punishment. An act is therefore either right or unjust on its own and does not need the court’s ruling to determine if it is right or wrong. In delivering justice, the goal is to assess the extent to which an unlawful act affected the guilty party and then issue an applicable course of action.

Socrates: Still on the example of murder, if justice operates by ensuring the crime is equal to the punishment, why are some people hanged or sent to the electric chair while others get a life sentence. When does killing another person not warrant death as punishment? And how then is justice delivered when the punishment does not equal the crime?

Me: like most elements that govern society, there are rules and guidelines to be followed. In the case of murder, the court gets to decide the appropriate punishment depending on the crime committed. If one warrants hanging or the electric chair, then the judge sentences the criminal to the appropriate form of punishment. However, even when delivering justice, there are ethics and morals to be concerned and this is why some murderers get sent to life imprisonment instead of receiving the capital punishment.

Socrates: If the crime is the same, does that not mean that there is partial justice when some criminals get a better or different sentencing than others who committed the same crime? Murder is murder. If someone is killed, balancing the scale then means that the killer must also be killed. How then can justice be delivered if some people get different punishment for the same crime?

Me: Justice strives not to punish the wrong doer but rather to ensure that there are no unjust people in society and that those that engage in unjust actions are dealt with accordingly. Since life imprisonment means that the criminal spends their lives in jail, the community is better and safer.

Socrates: But making the community safer after a crime has been committed does not mean that those affected by the unjust act have got their justice. How then does justice serve people on an individual level if the interests of the community are considered more than the victim?

Me: It serves the interests of the entire community by making every individual safe and protected. When a crime is committed, sending the criminal to prison protects others from being victims of the same or another crime by the same person.

Socrates: You said that justice involves issuing equal punishment for unjust acts. Does it not mean that justice has not been dealt to prisoners who get life sentences for murder?

Me: while the punishment may not be equal, the criminal does get punished for the crime and spends the rest of his life in prison where he cannot commit any more crimes that will affect members of the community.

Socrates: But you said justice is not about punishing people but rather about bringing equality especially when punishing an unjust act. Why then are there different punishments for the same crime, some of which are not equal to the crime?

Me: although the aim is to maintain equality, Justice also takes into consideration how the crime was committed, who committed the crime, the motive among other factors. Since taking someone’s life is a big decision, it is only done on instances where absolutely necessary.

Socrates: you had mentioned earlier that justice involves balancing the scale of good and evil. That, through it, people conforms to the set policies that determine truth, reason and facts within the community.

Me: Yes. Most, if not all have their own laws that govern citizens. There are also community policies that address issues that involve unjust actions but on a lower scale. Relevant people in authority such as community leaders and the police use these laws to act accordingly when dealing with someone accused of committing an unjust or unlawful act.

Socrates: So the same laws apply across the world to ensure that everyone is just?

Me: Not necessarily. Different regions have different measures for what is right and what is wrong. Different cultures have different beliefs and therefore regard situations differently depending on the people’s customs and beliefs. These differences mean that the laws and policies that exist in one country may differ from another.

Socrates: so what you are saying is that justice is not absolute?

Me: It is absolute. All countries follow a similar approach when dealing with people who engage in unjust conduct. Although some laws may differ among countries, there are universal laws that ensure that justice prevails and that human rights and freedoms are protected.

Socrates: How then is justice administered if different laws apply in different countries? And how can u say justice is absolute when its implementation varies on so many different occasions?

Me: Justice follows a set of rules and guidelines that are structured with the interests of the community, and the country in mind. The policies not only determine what is just and unjust but also determine the correct cause of action to take depending on the nature of the crime, the culture and the people the laws govern. justice is a process in which what is just is administered and maintained and this is achieved through assigning punishments to those who engage in conduct that is regarded as unjust. For justice to be administered there must therefore be some form of rules that are used to determine what is unjust and why it is inappropriate. Other than laws, there must also be guidelines to follow in the case where one engages in unjust ways because, for there to be true justice, there must be equal punishments to punish those who are unjust. Justice is therefore a process of ensuring that people conform to the set policies that determine truth, reason and facts within the community.