Theory on Justice

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 156
  • Published : July 15, 2010
Open Document
Text Preview
FINAL PAPER

THEORY OF JUSTICE, PERSONAL VIEWS ON NATURAL LAW AND MORAL ETHICS What is Justice? How many theories of justice are out there? Whose definition of justice is valid and correct? In today’s society, I believe everyone has their own belief on justice. We develop our theories through what we experience in life and the events that we witness. As we mature, we get wiser we build our opinions and theories on logical and rational thinking. This obviously comes with time and education. Justice is a man-made law that was created to judge and discipline the ones that defy the law. The law is also a man-made system of rules which is collection of numerous sets of institutions. When justice is carried out in a case, it governs the rules and carries it out to those it serves. I’m a true believer in this theory and I feel that my opinion of justice is rational. Now some will argue is justice fair? Does it define the moral rights for the law? There are several kinds of justice that can be sorted out. From these different types of justice, one person can develop his/her theory and build upon it to guide them through life. From here, justice brings and immense burden upon society to prove the guilt or innocence of its citizens so that the framework of justice can prevail.

My belief in the system of justice deals with morality on fairness and natural law, hence my belief and theory that justice is man-made. One great example that I’ve used before is from the movie, “A Time to Kill” shows how the justice system works in fairness. The general plot here is a lawyer is fighting to save a father on trail for murder that he committed in revenge for the rape of his 10-year-old daughter. During this movie, the jury plays a big role to decide the fate for the father standing trail. The two men that raped his daughter got off and walked away. In an act of vengeance and determination, the father guns them down. He argues the point was justice served here for these two men that brutally raped a little girl. With determination, he goes to bat for his client. The lawyer displays his compassion and sympathy towards his client. He convinces the jury that the father bent the law for the love and affection of his daughter. The father in the end is found not guilty and is set free. The way I interpret this is justice has a sense of balance. Here, two wrongs equaled a right. Both cases were found not guilty for a serious crime that was committed. Why is this justice? My answer: fairness and natural rights. Natural rights are rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or beliefs of a particular society. This is what I believed that was used to determine the case against the father.

In Frederick Mark Gedick’s handout “Justice or Mercy? – A Personal Note on Defending the Guilty”, he discusses morality in defending those that are guilty. I share the same enthusiasm that Gedicks does when he states, “I believe there is morality in defending even those guilty of the most heinous crimes, a morality that is based not on the lawyer’s role in the system, but rather on her choice to defend a person in need.” From my example of the movie “A Time to Kill”, here the lawyer understands the father’s actions and what he was fighting for. He knew the good in his client and that if he were in position; he would have done the same thing. One of the main attributes of being a criminal lawyer is to show rationality and morality for his client. I’ve been an advocate for is how justice was served for the 9-11 attacks on our nation. The Bush Administration has been the most controversial organization because of their response to the 9-11 terror attacks. Surely one can say that we were attacked on your nation’s soil and this is the only way but many argue that we shouldn’t have gone to war. So many young soldiers’ lives have been taken from the fight for your freedom and protection of this nation. As George W. Bush...
tracking img