A A A R R R G HOME
JUSTICE <! ==================== OK AFTER HERE =================================================>
JUSTICE is not LAW.
Law is a rule & establishes standards for public modes of conduct & procedure. Law is ritualistic in nature. A law may be right, or it may be wrong. Just because something is a law does not make it correct in terms of justice. A law may be imposed to prevent against some real harm. “EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW” means exactly that. If one is really truly harmed by another, then the victim is entitled to the same protection that any other person would be entitled to. The government cannot disparitize in how it deals with victims of crime. But “Equal Protection” does not mean “Equal Endorsement or Licensing”
JUSTICE is to be found somewhere between inappropriate tolerance and inappropriate intolerance. What do I mean by this. "Inappropriate tolerance" accepts and excuses wrong doing. "Inappropriate intolerance" is in itself engaging in wrong doing.
JUSTICE is retribution for a wrong doing, the most commonly serious wrong doing being homocide which can result in Capital Punishment. Before meeting out the ultimate retribution, JUSTICE must comply with the morality or immorality of murder. How can murder be moral you ask? Most would say murder is absolutely immoral. But consider the person who is terminally ill and seeks to end it. Or consider the cabin boy who offers up his life to his stranded starving shipmates in order to feed them. After all, consider that it is said that Jesus Christ gave up His life for us. In other words, if a person consents to their own death at the hands of another, that can be seen as moral. So the real morality of murder boils down to whether or not the victim consented or not to be murdered. Given this line of reasoning, before meeting out justice equitable with the alleged crime , justice must consider whether or not the victim gave his consent.
This website adamantly maintains that WITHOUT JUST CAPITAL PUNISHMENT, THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS AN ENFORCIBLE LAW. But capital punishment based upon anything other than explicit or implicit consent is wrong. Implicit consent is that given through one's actions, wherein he agrees with the morality of the murder of another person without their consent. Once one has committed the irreversible act of unjustifiable homocide, he has given his irreversable implied consent to be executed.
Execution based strictly upon religious grounds without equitable consideration is a crime. And denial of execution based upon religious convictions is complicity with the murder of the original victim. There is plenty of justification given in the Bible for execution of a murderer. Leviticus is one area of the Bible. Revelations 18-6 is clearly another area. But people like to argue that Christ said to forgive those who do you wrong. He specifically addressed the old testament adage "An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth". But these are not life taking examples. Nor did Christ leave the door opened for forgiveness when he claimed that mocking the Holy Spirit is unforgivable. Where the penalty for speaking against the Holy Spirit may be death, Christ did not put it in our hands to carry out such a sentence. But there is no price that can be put on a life of an innocent non consensual victim other than the life of the proven unjustifiable murderer. Equitable consideration demands it.
Where was justice for the soldiers of Malmedy? In 1944, during the Battle of the Bulge, the Malmedy massacre occurred, where 84 American prisoners of war were executed by German SS troops. In a documentary on the massacre, those nazis behind it, and the resulting so-called justice that followed, there was absolutely no doubt that the 80+ Nazi soldiers on trial were guilty of the atrocity. And initially 20+ of those responsible were to be correctly hanged. BUT, a subsequent appeals trial decided to suspend the hanging verdict and give them life sentences, because of alleged interrogator misconduct. THEY WERE ALL OUT WITHIN 11 YEARS. It seems there is no end to the abuse of the goodness of our hearts. This is a very sad commentary for justice, and I am surprized that such nonsense was allowed even back then. We ask people to defend us and WE DONT EVEN HAVE THE DECENCY TO BACK THEM UP.
It seems there is no end to the abuse meted out to victims & caused by the goodness of our hearts to murderers. This is a very sad commentary for justice, and it is surprising that such nonsense was allowed even back then. We ask people to defend us and WE DONT EVEN HAVE THE DECENCY TO BACK THEM UP.
Our nation is basically founded upon the premise, "JUSTICE FOR ALL" which finds its source in the Christian/Judeo premise “as you sow, so shall you reap”. The quest for justice on behalf of the most innocent & the most victimized must always be our highest goal, along with seeking the highest standards of conduct that encourage the human species to rise above the animal level. That does not necessarily mean "equality" for all, nor should it. And it does not mean redistribution of the wealth. But it does mean equitable recompense and consideration to the victim for the wrongful deprivation of his God-given life, his property &/or his ability to compete, such wrongful deprivation being unfairly imposed by another. And in the worst cases, that equitable recompense must include the possible capital punishment of the wrong-doer in accordance with the morality “what is good for the goose must be good for the gander”. In all cases of justice, the penalty must fit the crime, lest injustice will prevail. Penalties going beyond the crime are unjust. Penalties falling short of what is warranted by the crime are equally unjust. “Due Process” means getting it right in all cases. Thus, true justice is a restoration process.
When it comes to prioritizing the hearing cases of alleged deprivation, our courts are required to operate and uphold justice "IN GOOD FAITH". "Good Faith" means with good intentions & purpose, not only on the part of the court, but also on the part of all participants, including the alleged victim. Frivolous claims of alleged harm ought not even be considered. As of late, there have been a lot of such cases which have resulted in the destruction of our legitimate democratic processes. Childish complaints about the appearance of crosses on hills & matters of marriage rage on in our courts. Meanwhile, the victims of violent crime are effectively left bleeding on the steps of the courts. This is not justice. This is a disgrace.