Justice - The Firearms Forum

wpage · 07-25-2010, 03:44 PM

The founder had some understanding of justice.
Will US ever have a clue of true Justice.

belercous · 07-26-2010, 11:55 PM

"Justice" is in the eye of the beholder. What is "justice" to one is injustice to another.
"Justice," from my understanding of the term, Justice is what the soveriegn says it is.
One of the first questions asked in law school is "when you walk into a courtroom, do you want justice to be served?" The first student answered "yes." Incorrect answer.
The correct answer is "No, I want my client to win."
"Justice" is subjective, there is no one correct answer. "Justice" is for each person's God to sort out. Ever hear the phrase "kill `em all, let God sort `em out?" (Actually the quote is "Kill them all for God knows his own.") Just showing how we cannot be certain of any absolute truth. So don't be too sure of what you "know."

red14 · 07-27-2010, 12:00 AM

Or in the words of Gregory Peck in 'The Yearling":
"It all depends on whose ox got gored."

199er · 07-27-2010, 12:37 AM

Quote:

One of the first questions asked in law school is "when you walk into a courtroom, do you want justice to be served?" The first student answered "yes." Incorrect answer.
The correct answer is "No, I want my client to win."

Excellent analogy to make your point

belercous · 07-27-2010, 01:31 AM

Oh, crap. There are actaully people here that occasionally agree with me?
Thanks, guys for standing up. That takes balls as I know I'm an unpopular voice on this site.
I'm a liberal, but my first priority is for truth, however it may be. [B.T.W.; I'm all for C.C., I support Arizona, and my position on abortion is a third view not ever expoused, or at least from what I've heard. (It involves the father, child support, and an injuction by the father)]
I do my own thinking, and I am occasionally mistaken, but if I don't hear the opposition's best argument, I'll never know the truth. Dialectic arguments with zealous advocates on both sides permits one to discern the truth, or at least get us close.

hogger129 · 07-27-2010, 07:48 PM

Law is a business in my opinion too.

Just like the guy above said, most lawyers don't really care about justice, they simply want their client to win.

If I were a lawyer, I'd view it as my duty and obligation to serve justice, not to win all the time.

belercous · 07-29-2010, 01:23 AM

Law is a most certainly a business. But hey, that's the free market. And while every attorney is a sworn officer of the court (meaning s/he cannot lie to the court), "spin" is allowed. And any attorney who only wants "justice" to prevail either works for a public interest group or starves. Innocent clients are few and far between. (Otherwise they wouldn't be in court) I cannot find anything to disagree with Hogger129 about.

But, truly, an honest Prosecuting Attorney is one who can lose a fairly litigated case and say that "justice" has been served. The system worked, even though they lost. Or that's the theory anyway.
"Justice," in the American (adversarial advocacy) sense of the term, means having a case tried before a jury, by 2 opposing zealous advocates. The best argument wins.
Can't say it's the best system, but so far we've found none better.
(We could add a European aspect wherein the loser pays [attorney & court costs] to reduce the caseload) (Or proffesional juries in med/mal cases. It would bring about parity and reduce the practice of "defensive medicine.") Ooh, I'm off-topic and prattling again, me out.

07-25-2010, 03:44 PM	#1
wpage Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 1,471	Justice The founder had some understanding of justice. Will US ever have a clue of true Justice. __________________ "You shall recieve power" Acts 1:8 W -->

07-26-2010, 11:55 PM	#2
belercous Former Guest Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 195	Re: Justice "Justice" is in the eye of the beholder. What is "justice" to one is injustice to another. "Justice," from my understanding of the term, Justice is what the soveriegn says it is. One of the first questions asked in law school is "when you walk into a courtroom, do you want justice to be served?" The first student answered "yes." Incorrect answer. The correct answer is "No, I want my client to win." "Justice" is subjective, there is no one correct answer. "Justice" is for each person's God to sort out. Ever hear the phrase "kill `em all, let God sort `em out?" (Actually the quote is "Kill them all for God knows his own.") Just showing how we cannot be certain of any absolute truth. So don't be too sure of what you "know."

07-27-2010, 12:00 AM	#3
red14 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: N FLA Posts: 3,916	Re: Justice Or in the words of Gregory Peck in 'The Yearling": "It all depends on *whose* ox got gored." __________________ I never argue, I state my opinion, and support my position.

07-27-2010, 01:31 AM	#5
belercous Former Guest Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 195	Re: Justice Oh, crap. There are actaully people here that occasionally agree with me? Thanks, guys for standing up. That takes balls as I know I'm an unpopular voice on this site. I'm a liberal, but my first priority is for truth, however it may be. [B.T.W.; I'm all for C.C., I support Arizona, and my position on abortion is a third view not ever expoused, or at least from what I've heard. (It involves the father, child support, and an injuction by the father)] I do my own thinking, and I am occasionally mistaken, but if I don't hear the opposition's best argument, I'll never know the truth. Dialectic arguments with zealous advocates on both sides permits one to discern the truth, or at least get us close.

07-27-2010, 07:48 PM	#6
hogger129 Advanced Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2009 Posts: 4,078	Re: Justice Law is a business in my opinion too. Just like the guy above said, most lawyers don't really care about justice, they simply want their client to win. If I were a lawyer, I'd view it as my duty and obligation to serve justice, not to win all the time.

07-29-2010, 01:23 AM	#7
belercous Former Guest Join Date: Aug 2009 Posts: 195	Re: Justice Law is a most certainly a business. But hey, that's the free market. And while every attorney is a sworn officer of the court (meaning s/he cannot lie to the court), "spin" is allowed. And any attorney who only wants "justice" to prevail either works for a public interest group or starves. Innocent clients are few and far between. (Otherwise they wouldn't be in court) I cannot find anything to disagree with Hogger129 about. But, truly, an honest Prosecuting Attorney is one who can lose a fairly litigated case and say that "justice" has been served. The system worked, even though they lost. Or that's the theory anyway. "Justice," in the American (adversarial advocacy) sense of the term, means having a case tried before a jury, by 2 opposing zealous advocates. The best argument wins. Can't say it's the best system, but so far we've found none better. (We could add a European aspect wherein the loser pays [attorney & court costs] to reduce the caseload) (Or proffesional juries in med/mal cases. It would bring about parity and reduce the practice of "defensive medicine.") Ooh, I'm off-topic and prattling again, me out.