Justice vs. Revenge

[Resha Caner]

Thoughts?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Thoughts?

Yes, Justice and Revenge are thoughts.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Can't one have both?

 

[Resha Caner]

Can't one have both?

Is there a difference?

 

[jayem]

My 2 cents:

Justice is restitution. If a someone has been harmed, justice is the victim being made whole, as much as possible, by the victimizer.

Revenge is retribution. It's a victimizer being subject to some retaliation for what was done to the victim.

Depending on the situation, the same action may or may not accomplish both. But justice should be the primary goal.

 

[SithDoughnut]

Justice is a vague topic, you can incorporate revenge into it, and have a system based around "an eye for an eye". That being said, I think that a good justice system should be designed around the idea of trying to reform people where possible, and to encourage people to not commit crimes in the first place.

 

[Resha Caner]

Justice is restitution. If a someone has been harmed, justice is the victim being made whole, as much as possible, by the victimizer.

Revenge is retribution. It's a victimizer being subject to some retaliation for what was done to the victim.

I like how you've phrased this, but it prompts 3 additional comments/questions:

1) You left out reforming the victimizer. Does justice include reform (as Sith mentioned)?
2) Our legal system is primarily about punishing the victimizer (with some token nods toward reform). Should the legal system put more emphasis on restitution? For example, in a criminal case the only result is the punishment. If the victim wants more, they have to bring an additional civil suit (think OJ). Even then, the reward is usually just money. There is nothing about making the victim "whole."
3) Does justice involve forgiveness on the part of the victim?

 

[Paradoxum]

Doesn't justice attempt to be rational, whereas revenge is based on uncalculated emotion?

Justice is doing what is rational to make things objectively right, whereas revenge seems more subjective and unthought out.

 

[Resha Caner]

Doesn't justice attempt to be rational, whereas revenge is based on uncalculated emotion?

Justice is doing what is rational to make things objectively right, whereas revenge seems more subjective and unthought out.

I think that in modern terms "emotion" has become synonomous with "uncontrolled." Is some sympathy or righteous anger on the part of a judge acceptable? IOW, should justice consider emotion or ignore it?

 

[Beechwell]

I think justice is concerned with the present and future, whereas revenge is concerned with the past.

I understand justice in a Rawlian sense as a kind of fairness within a social system. That is not something that can be achieved for the past, which is unchangable.
Revenge is always concerned about a deed in the past, repercussions on future eventes are at best incidental.

So if someone wants to "bring person X to justice" for past deeds, I would say he is in fact after revenge, not justice.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think justice is concerned with the present and future, whereas revenge is concerned with the past.

...

So if someone wants to "bring person X to justice" for past deeds, I would say he is in fact after revenge, not justice.

Except that, were it not for past deeds, no action would be necessary. So, I'm not sure what this means unless you're saying proper justice is about the idea of restitution mentioned earlier.

 

[Cute Tink]

I think justice is concerned with the present and future, whereas revenge is concerned with the past.

I do like where you were going with this, but I would modify it to say that justice focuses on the present and future and revenge focuses on the past.

Justice still recognizes the past and revenge still recognizes the present and future, otherwise neither would be able to act.

 

[Beechwell]

Except that, were it not for past deeds, no action would be necessary. So, I'm not sure what this means unless you're saying proper justice is about the idea of restitution mentioned earlier.

Why would no action be necessary without past deeds? You can strive for justice even without knowing the past. Not so for revenge.

 

[Nanopants]

Wouldn't the desire for vengeance be the same as a desire for justice to be done?

 

[Eudaimonist]

Wouldn't the desire for vengeance be the same as a desire for justice to be done?

I wouldn't think so. Vengeance is motivated by hatred of the guilty, while justice is motivated by love of the innocent.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[SithDoughnut]

I wouldn't think so. Vengeance is motivated by hatred of the guilty, while justice is motivated by love of the innocent.

I wouldn't say the justice is motivated by love of any kind. Justice is concerned entirely with itself and the rules it expresses; it is possible to have a justice system that assumes guilt, for example.

 

[Eudaimonist]

I wouldn't say the justice is motivated by love of any kind. Justice is concerned entirely with itself and the rules it expresses; it is possible to have a justice system that assumes guilt, for example.

Well, I look at it differently. To me, justice can never "assume guilt". That would be a perversion of justice.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[jayem]

I like how you've phrased this, but it prompts 3 additional comments/questions:

1) You left out reforming the victimizer. Does justice include reform (as Sith mentioned)?

That's an ideal. And still kind of elusive. In many places, the penal system is euphemistically called the Department of "Corrections." Which implies reformation. If we ever figure how to do it effectively (and humanely) then it should be part of the penal process. But the very first goal of the penal system is to protect society by incarcerating dangerous offenders.

2) Our legal system is primarily about punishing the victimizer (with some token nods toward reform). Should the legal system put more emphasis on restitution? For example, in a criminal case the only result is the punishment. If the victim wants more, they have to bring an additional civil suit (think OJ). Even then, the reward is usually just money. There is nothing about making the victim "whole."

I used the term "making whole" in the figurative sense. Monetary compensation is the best that can be done in most cases. But yes, I think restitution should be second goal of criminal justice. Laws should allow judges to include work requirements in sentences. The offender would be put to work at a some nominal wage with the earnings going to his victim, or the victim's family, or maybe a state victim's compensation fund. To me, justice is well served when an offender spends some years of his life, or maybe most of his life working to repay the damage he's done. Of course, in actuality he can probably never make his victim whole. But even symbolic restitution like this is important.

3) Does justice involve forgiveness on the part of the victim?

It's not a function of the justice system per se, but it's good for the victim to do. It's terribly unhealthy for anyone to hold on to anger and bitterness for a long time.

 

[Paradoxum]

I think that in modern terms "emotion" has become synonomous with "uncontrolled." Is some sympathy or righteous anger on the part of a judge acceptable? IOW, should justice consider emotion or ignore it?

I tried to make it clear that I meant uncontrolled emotion. Emotion is fine, as long as it controlled and focused around what the reasonable thing to do it. Passion for righteous causes can be a good thing, but you have to know what the right thing to do is first.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why would no action be necessary without past deeds? You can strive for justice even without knowing the past. Not so for revenge.

You're going to have to explain your idea further.

As it stands, it sounds like you're proposing something ridiculous where our actions are based on predictions of the future that takes no notice of the past. The result would be the same as guessing.