Search from here!

Lady Justice Weeps

So, just what IS "True Justice", anyway? What kinds of "empirical factors" are required to ensure True Justice is appropriately and sustainably defined and practiced? 

What kinds of "checks and balances" are needed to protect against favoritism, cronyism, unfairness, inequity, partiality, and other similar injustices?

Are we losing sight of the things which have become symbolic of True Justice over the past centuries and rewriting the age-old definitions? 

According to Wikipedia, Justice is defined as follows:

"Justice is the legal or philosophical theory by which fairness is administered."

Well, that doesn't say a whole lot, but I think the one word that stands out is "fairness". I think fairness must always matter when seeking True Justice...don't you?

Without fairness, Justice does not exist, since it requires fairness in order to be "just"...according to this definition.

Fairness, justness, fair play, fair-mindedness, equity, evenhandedness, impartiality, objectivity, neutrality, disinterestedness, honesty, righteousness, morals, morality.

Of course, each of these terms can be further broken down and defined to better grasp the fullness and the broad spectrum of what True Justice really is supposed to mean.

True Justice (with capital letters) can really only mean ONE THING for all...not one thing for one segment of society and another thing for another segment.

True Justice can really only be carried out by those who embrace and foster and promote and practice all the factors that make up the concept.

True Justice can really only be expected from a society and culture that does not allow for special treatment, 'loopholes', and all the other things that are, even now, undermining our Justice System.

In Elizabeth Warren's "Rigged Justice 2016" report, we can get a sense for how some of our Justice System does not seem to be working properly, as the report describes 20 cases of high-level, high-powered, questionable corporate practices (were they "crimes"?) that have resulted in no criminal charges against any individuals who might be involved...primarily dealing with executive levels.

See also: 

What is to be done, then? Do we just let the 'older' (actually, still 'current') definitions for Justice go in one ear and out the other? Do we 're-define' Justice to better fit our current practices of unfairness and inequity? Do we 'excuse' ourselves for disregarding some of the "age-old" ideas and ideals about Justice?

Personally, I believe we need to step back and review just what we're doing, and we need to step forward with new resolve for keeping True Justice "sacred" enough to always mean what it is supposed to mean, and not be redefined 'willy-nilly', at the whims of some who might seek to benefit from some of that "convenient redefining", y'know?

Just sayin'...


No comments: