# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: This article describes the importance of justice by referencing the laws on rape in different areas of the world. It later goes on to make an overall statement of the justice system across the world.

The law on rape in Switzerland is currently one of the least protective in the world, and it completely excludes men, boys and LGBTQI+ individuals. The dangers of a narrow law like this is that many people are left unprotected – these victims can never seek justice through the system nor can they access support services because in the eyes of the law, no crime occurred.

In Namibia, in Southern Africa, the Combatting of Rape Act was amended in 2000, dramatically changing the law and providing improved justice outcomes for victims. The crime of rape in Namibia has an inclusive definition that considers circumstances when a victim’s right to consent has been taken away (coercion) and includes many types of intrusive sexual acts, not just penetration. Under this law women, men, girls, boys, and LGBTQI+ individuals are protected.*

Depending on where you find yourself in the world, your sense of safety and protection can vary radically. The irony is that rape statistics don’t vary. For example, a woman, man or child is just as vulnerable to be sexually abused in Namibia as they are in Switzerland. Yet, it is the victim in Switzerland who will be the least protected by the law.

A victim may not want to face the justice process. Being dragged through a legal proceeding that could cost the victim all of their life savings and result in the perpetrator never acknowledging the crime or being realized is not always the ‘right thing to do’. Sometimes a victim wants to just focus on recovery. Sometimes a victim isn’t ready for a court hearing but still wants forensics to be taken in case they find the courage to press charges later. Sometimes a victim wants to do nothing at all.

Ultimately, it should be the victim who has the right to choose. A system that lacks laws or a sufficient justice process, strips the victim of that right.

Whatever a victim decides to do, what matters is that there are inclusive laws that acknowledge a rape crime has been committed allowing the victim to access the services and support they need to find justice and heal. Without these laws there has been no crime. A perpetrator is free to continue raping. There are no victims.

And this is why justice is so important.

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: This poem by Hasmukh Amathalal discusses the other side of justice, where people do not get the retribution that they deserve. He addresses the circumstances where people may feel cheated out of rightful revenge, and speaks on what justified justice may be for certain people.

Can justice be delayed under any circumstances?

Numerous cases can be sighted for instances

Can that not be amounted as justice denied?

Well, conscious should always bite if it is laid

Constitution enshrined for liberty and freedom

Forefathers too considered and thought it as wisdom

Sacrifice made for freedom struggle should not go as waste

To live with true freedom was need of an hour and taste

Still many loop holes remain to be plugged

System is facing criticism and it is wholly bugged

Justice is sold as revealed with emergence of new facts

it is cleverly wrapped in words with simple tact

Under official ret act, nothing can be made public or revealed

Under the oath of secrecy it is cleverly concealed

Normal man can’t dream for getting immediate relief

Loosing faith and trust as mark of disbelief

Innocents are sometimes hung for nothing

Trial summary drags on for years to prove something

History teeters and goons rule the scene

it has been made laughing stock which is never witnessed or seen

Conscience like things has remained on paper

Evidences or approver turn hostile and proof is tempered

Solitary examples shine and keep the system alive

Does the system require honest trial for self and to be revived?

Politicians have corrupted and citizens too have favored

Easy ill gotten money plays part with fragrance and flavor

who would not want to become rich and famous?

Leading lavish life with style and look so glamorous

Death sentence can’t be implemented for simple reason

Wrong move for computation of term for person tried under treason

Still some of us praise the system and sing for liberty

How can it grow amidst the illiteracy and poverty?

Nothing can l change under the light and sun

we will tear it apart by making mockery and fun

Streets will have deserted look under the shadow of gun

People may seek refuge under constant fear and run
...

# data[].attributes.headline
Justice and Fairness by Manuel Velasquez 

# data[].attributes.subject
Justice and Fairness by Manuel Velasquez 

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: This excerpt from Manuel Velasquez gives an in-depth explanation in determining the definition of justice. He speaks on the opposing side of total justice for everyone, talking about those who are justifiably treated differently. More specific than a definition, this excerpt talks about how justice is served and in what situations.

Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality.

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness.

When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve.

But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far. How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what is due to this or that person?

Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice—one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago—is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice—a form of discrimination—because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria—need, desert, contribution, and effort—we acknowledge as justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Many public policy arguments focus on fairness. Is affirmative action fair? Are congressional districts drawn to be fair? Is our tax policy fair? Is our method for funding schools fair?

Arguments about justice or fairness have a long tradition in Western civilization. In fact, no idea in Western civilization has been more consistently linked to ethics and morality than the idea of justice. From the Republic, written by the ancient Greek philosopher Plato, to A Theory of Justice, written by the late Harvard philosopher John Rawls, every major work on ethics has held that justice is part of the central core of morality.

Justice means giving each person what he or she deserves or, in more traditional terms, giving each person his or her due. Justice and fairness are closely related terms that are often today used interchangeably. There have, however, also been more distinct understandings of the two terms. While justice usually has been used with reference to a standard of rightness, fairness often has been used with regard to an ability to judge without reference to one's feelings or interests; fairness has also been used to refer to the ability to make judgments that are not overly general but that are concrete and specific to a particular case. In any case, a notion of being treated as one deserves is crucial to both justice and fairness.

When people differ over what they believe should be given, or when decisions have to be made about how benefits and burdens should be distributed among a group of people, questions of justice or fairness inevitably arise. In fact, most ethicists today hold the view that there would be no point of talking about justice or fairness if it were not for the conflicts of interest that are created when goods and services are scarce and people differ over who should get what. When such conflicts arise in our society, we need principles of justice that we can all accept as reasonable and fair standards for determining what people deserve.

But saying that justice is giving each person what he or she deserves does not take us very far. How do we determine what people deserve? What criteria and what principles should we use to determine what is due to this or that person?

Principles of Justice
The most fundamental principle of justice-one that has been widely accepted since it was first defined by Aristotle more than two thousand years ago-is the principle that "equals should be treated equally and unequals unequally." In its contemporary form, this principle is sometimes expressed as follows: "Individuals should be treated the same, unless they differ in ways that are relevant to the situation in which they are involved." For example, if Jack and Jill both do the same work, and there are no relevant differences between them or the work they are doing, then in justice they should be paid the same wages. And if Jack is paid more than Jill simply because he is a man, or because he is white, then we have an injustice-a form of discrimination-because race and sex are not relevant to normal work situations.

There are, however, many differences that we deem as justifiable criteria for treating people differently. For example, we think it is fair and just when a parent gives his own children more attention and care in his private affairs than he gives the children of others; we think it is fair when the person who is first in a line at a theater is given first choice of theater tickets; we think it is just when the government gives benefits to the needy that it does not provide to more affluent citizens; we think it is just when some who have done wrong are given punishments that are not meted out to others who have done nothing wrong; and we think it is fair when those who exert more efforts or who make a greater contribution to a project receive more benefits from the project than others. These criteria-need, desert, contribution, and effort-we acknowledge as justifying differential treatment, then, are numerous.

On the other hand, there are also criteria that we believe are not justifiable grounds for giving people different treatment. In the world of work, for example, we generally hold that it is unjust to give individuals special treatment on the basis of age, sex, race, or their religious preferences. If the judge's nephew receives a suspended sentence for armed robbery when another offender unrelated to the judge goes to jail for the same crime, or the brother of the Director of Public Works gets the million dollar contract to install sprinklers on the municipal golf course despite lower bids from other contractors, we say that it's unfair. We also believe it isn't fair when a person is punished for something over which he or she had no control, or isn't compensated for a harm he or she suffered.

Different Kinds of Justice
There are different kinds of justice. Distributive justice refers to the extent to which society's institutions ensure that benefits and burdens are distributed among society's members in ways that are fair and just. When the institutions of a society distribute benefits or burdens in unjust ways, there is a strong presumption that those institutions should be changed. For example, the American institution of slavery in the pre-civil war South was condemned as unjust because it was a glaring case of treating people differently on the basis of race.

A second important kind of justice is retributive or corrective justice. Retributive justice refers to the extent to which punishments are fair and just. In general, punishments are held to be just to the extent that they take into account relevant criteria such as the seriousness of the crime and the intent of the criminal, and discount irrelevant criteria such as race. It would be barbarously unjust, for example, to chop off a person's hand for stealing a dime, or to impose the death penalty on a person who by accident and without negligence injured another party. Studies have frequently shown that when blacks murder whites, they are much more likely to receive death sentences than when whites murder whites or blacks murder blacks. These studies suggest that injustice still exists in the criminal justice system in the United States.

Yet a third important kind of justice is compensatory justice. Compensatory justice refers to the extent to which people are fairly compensated for their injuries by those who have injured them; just compensation is proportional to the loss inflicted on a person. This is precisely the kind of justice that is at stake in debates over damage to workers' health in coal mines. Some argue that mine owners should compensate the workers whose health has been ruined. Others argue that workers voluntarily took on this risk when they chose employment in the mines.

The foundations of justice can be traced to the notions of social stability, interdependence, and equal dignity. As the ethicist John Rawls has pointed out, the stability of a society-or any group, for that matter-depends upon the extent to which the members of that society feel that they are being treated justly. When some of society's members come to feel that they are subject to unequal treatment, the foundations have been laid for social unrest, disturbances, and strife. The members of a community, Rawls holds, depend on each other, and they will retain their social unity only to the extent that their institutions are just. Moreover, as the philosopher Immanuel Kant and others have pointed out, human beings are all equal in this respect: they all have the same dignity, and in virtue of this dignity they deserve to be treated as equals. Whenever individuals are treated unequally on the basis of characteristics that are arbitrary and irrelevant, their fundamental human dignity is violated.

Justice, then, is a central part of ethics and should be given due consideration in our moral lives. In evaluating any moral decision, we must ask whether our actions treat all persons equally. If not, we must determine whether the difference in treatment is justified: are the criteria we are using relevant to the situation at hand? But justice is not the only principle to consider in making ethical decisions. Sometimes principles of justice may need to be overridden in favor of other kinds of moral claims such as rights or society's welfare. Nevertheless, justice is an expression of our mutual recognition of each other's basic dignity, and an acknowledgement that if we are to live together in an interdependent community we must treat each other as equals.
This article appeared originally in Issues in Ethics V3 N2 (Spring 1990). It was updated in August 2018. The views expressed do not necessarily represent the position of the Markkula Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University. We welcome your comments, suggestions, or alternative points of view.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
An introduction to the justice approach to ethics including a discussion of desert, distributive justice, retributive justice, and compensatory justice.

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: This visual depicts the long, strenuous fight for rights with the black lives matter movement, and how police brutality is an issue that blacks are continuously fighting against.
Link: https://imgur.com/gallery/WsOwDUl

# data[].attributes.headline
What is Justice... TEDTalk by Guiliana Duron

# data[].attributes.subject
What is Justice... TEDTalk by Guiliana Duron

# data[].attributes.body
0:00-2:10
Explanation: In this video, high schooler Guiliana Duron speaks on the concept and purpose of justice. The speech connects to our essential questions about our role in society and our humanity.

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: During the Reconstruction Era, the South was riddled with corruption because of white supremacist groups and this political cartoon was drawn to show the polarization between the two groups.
Link: https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/reconstruction-thomas-nasts-political-cartoons/

# data[].attributes.headline
F**k the Police by N.W.A.                                       

# data[].attributes.subject
F**k the Police by N.W.A.                                       

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: The song by N.W.A expresses the racial injustice in the system. The song shares experiences and emotions from people of color and their view of the justice system.

F**k tha police, comin' straight from the underground A young *** got it bad 'cause I'm brown And not the other color, so police think They have the authority to kill a minority*** that *** 'cause I ain't the one For a punk motherf*** with a badge and a gun To be beatin' on and thrown in jail We can go toe to toe in the middle of a cell*** with me 'cause I'm a teenager With a little bit of gold and a pager Searchin' my car, lookin' for the product Thinkin' every             *** is sellin' narcotics

# data[].attributes.headline
What 'Justice' Really Means by Paul Bloomfield

# data[].attributes.subject
What 'Justice' Really Means by Paul Bloomfield

# data[].attributes.body
Explanation: This article is an opinion piece by Paul Bloomfield, a philosophy professor at the University of Connecticut, from the New York Times. He shares his views on justice and how it pertains to our daily lives.

It’s a staple of common sense that we don’t let judges try their own cases. Yet if we are to gain self-knowledge, we all must do just that: We must judge ourselves to know ourselves. While we typically think of justice as a virtue of social arrangements or political institutions, the United States has recently bore witness to this virtue in its first-person aspect — self-regarding justice — while watching the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court Justice.

The virtue of justice requires not only that we judge others fairly, but also that we judge ourselves fairly. This is no mean feat. The trouble is that if a person is a poor judge of him or herself, it is hard to imagine that person being a good judge of others. Bias toward the self often leads to bias against others. Justice begins within ourselves.

While justice is important for each of us in our personal lives, it becomes strikingly important when we think of those in positions of power. We need leaders motivated by a love of justice and not merely self-aggrandizement. Leadership without an inner moral compass reliably pointing toward justice inevitably ends in the abuse of power.

Philosophically, all virtues are ideals that we can only approach without fully attaining them. So, we can always aspire to do better. Given this, what role does the virtue of justice play in our personal lives? What role ought it to play?

In fact there are two roles: Justice functions both in our epistemology, or how we form and justify our beliefs, as well as in practical morality, informing our private and public behavior. These ought to be entwined in our lives since we ought not only think in a fair and just manner but also act accordingly.

The apotheosis of justice is the courtroom judge, interpreting the law and ruling on evidence concerning innocence and guilt. Model judges are epistemically just: Their cognitive processes are never biased or unduly swayed, their conclusions are not prejudged, and their verdicts reliably correspond to the facts. Truth is their goal. Not only must there be no thumb on the scale, the evidence must be balanced while wearing a blindfold. The rulings of judges, however, are also undeniably moral, bearing as they do on issues of justice, restitution and the execution of punishment.

Just people are wise in the ways of fairness, equality, desert and mercy. They are normally pacific. Just people mind their own business, except when they see and call out injustice, speaking truth to power, which they’ll do even at a personal cost. Justice questions authority.

Just people also question themselves. This makes them honest and non-self-deceptive. They vigilantly maintain a clear conscience. Just people are cognizant of their own mistakes and faults, and so they are forgiving of others. They respect who they actually are and not whom they merely wish they were, and their authentic self-respect makes them respectful of others. People who are just do as they say and say as they do: their word is their bond. They are capable of great loyalty and fidelity, but not without limit.

The central epistemic principles of justice require like cases to be treated alike, as captured legally by the concepts of the rule of law and precedent. Weak and strong, rich and poor, all are equal before the law (where this must include the Supreme Court justices and presidents of the United States). While applying general principles alone is sufficient for clear, ordinary cases, a fine sensitivity, experience and reflection is necessary for reliably judging unusual or exceptional cases. Well-developed justice requires expertise in making hard “judgment calls.”

The central moral principles of justice require us to give proper respect to one another: Each of us must recognize the other as a person and not merely as an object. Each of us may testify. The least common denominator among us is that we are all human beings. In addition to that, we each have particular features making us all unique. Justice pays proper attention to what we have in common and to what sets us apart.

In discussing justice as a personal virtue, Aristotle said that being just, “is a mean between committing injustice and suffering it, since the one is having more than one’s share, while the other is having less.” As recklessness and cowardice are opposing vices of courage, arrogance and servility are opposing vices of justice.

From sidewalk sexual harassment to the obstruction of justice, all abuses of power involve an unjust willingness to greedily arrogate more than one’s due. Typically, those who abuse their strength or cheat, and then don’t get caught or punished, self-deceptively think they’ve “beaten the system” and “won.” But fooling others into thinking you have earned a victory is not the same as genuinely being victorious. Cheaters fool themselves when they elide this difference.

The other way to fail justice is by judging ourselves to be less worthy than we truly are. This is sadly common among oppressed people, but it also arises among the affluent and powerful under the guise of the “impostor syndrome.” Humility has its place, but we shouldn’t overdo it, nor let it interfere with the intellectual courage required to call out injustice. Those who unfairly put themselves down or are servile, for whatever reason, are doing themselves an injustice by willfully accepting less than their fair share.

Given all this, the virtue of justice plays an important role in families and friendships, between neighbors and citizens, colleagues and clients, acquaintances and strangers. But it is also central to being a good person and living happily, and not merely deceiving oneself into believing that one is a good person and that one is happy.

Bringing justice fully into our lives, thinking in terms of it, will make us more circumspect. We are all too fallible. But it is often the case that we are much better at spotting the faults of others than we are at spotting faults in ourselves. Our blind spots are conveniently located to keep us from seeing our own weaknesses. What a coincidence!

Life is neither just nor fair: Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. This, however, only increases our obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The central moral principles of justice require us to give proper respect to one another: Each of us must recognize the other as a person and not merely as an object. Each of us may testify. The least common denominator among us is that we are all human beings. In addition to that, we each have particular features making us all unique. Justice pays proper attention to what we have in common and to what sets us apart.

In discussing justice as a personal virtue, Aristotle said that being just, "is a mean between committing injustice and suffering it, since the one is having more than one's share, while the other is having less." As recklessness and cowardice are opposing vices of courage, arrogance and servility are opposing vices of justice.

From sidewalk sexual harassment to the obstruction of justice, all abuses of power involve an unjust willingness to greedily arrogate more than one's due. Typically, those who abuse their strength or cheat, and then don't get caught or punished, self-deceptively think they've "beaten the system" and "won." But fooling others into thinking you have earned a victory is not the same as genuinely being victorious. Cheaters fool themselves when they elide this difference.

The other way to fail justice is by judging ourselves to be less worthy than we truly are. This is sadly common among oppressed people, but it also arises among the affluent and powerful under the guise of the "impostor syndrome." Humility has its place, but we shouldn't overdo it, nor let it interfere with the intellectual courage required to call out injustice. Those who unfairly put themselves down or are servile, for whatever reason, are doing themselves an injustice by willfully accepting less than their fair share.

Given all this, the virtue of justice plays an important role in families and friendships, between neighbors and citizens, colleagues and clients, acquaintances and strangers. But it is also central to being a good person and living happily, and not merely deceiving oneself into believing that one is a good person and that one is happy.

Bringing justice fully into our lives, thinking in terms of it, will make us more circumspect. We are all too fallible. But it is often the case that we are much better at spotting the faults of others than we are at spotting faults in ourselves. Our blind spots are conveniently located to keep us from seeing our own weaknesses. What a coincidence!

Life is neither just nor fair: Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. This, however, only increases our obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

Paul Bloomfield is a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut and the author of " The Virtues of Happiness."
Now in print: "Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments," and "The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments," with essays from the series, edited by Peter Catapano and Simon Critchley, published by Liveright Books.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | What 'Justice' Really Means (Published 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The central moral principles of justice require us to give proper respect to one another: Each of us must recognize the other as a person and not merely as an object. Each of us may testify. The least common denominator among us is that we are all human beings.