Hello there everyone, how's it going?  You know, today I've been thinking deeply upon the current state of things and how laws work when it comes to murders and other crimes of such a sort.  While I was out with my Mom and my Stepdad, I came to the idea of making this little essay, and I hope you all enjoy it.  Now then, let's begin, shall we?

 

I'll start off by asking the simple question: What is justice?  To the innocent and the poor, it is the divine law that punishes criminals and puts them in their place, and assures that society is in order.  But what does justice mean in the eyes of politics and the government? To them, it's all about money.  Whoever has the biggest buck gets justice, while the truly innocent are in jail, rotting for crimes they didn't commit.  This brings into question just how blind society is to one another, and it just proves that humans have a natural tendency to bring each other down.  The only true justice that exists is that of God's, for he alone delivers true judgement.  But for mortals, justice is a flawed and unreliable thing, merely an illusion.

 

An example of this can be seen in the anime Pyscho-Pass.  In the near future, technology has evolved to the point that criminal activity can be instantly monitored by a special form of identification in people known as the Psycho-Pass.  This determines a person's criminal tendencies, and if their crime coefficient is too high, they are either brought to jail or are killed.  This brings into question the state of justice that exists within this technology, as we see in the first episode, where a woman is raped by a psychopath.  After witnessing the death of her rapist, the psychological trauma makes her crime coefficient rise through the roof, and it labels her a criminal without her even committing a crime.  So she has to die because of the trauma she just went through?  I say that it's a twisted form of justice, one that really brings into mind the value of humanity in a person's soul.

 

To make a more realistic example, here's a recent case that was solved just a few days ago.  Carmen Paredes was murdered by her husband Pablo Casellas, and yet it took the investigative team two years to label him the culprit, with concrete evidence having shown it was him.  The publicity ensued, and only two days ago did the judge and jury finally came with the verdict that he was guilty, and now, because of the crimes he committed, he'll spend 129 years in prison, basically his whole life.  But to think that the police and the authorities took so much time to investigate such an obvious case is questionable, since if they really wanted to get him from the get go, they should have analyzed the evidence in every detail and put him in jail.

 

Another example is the case of Lorenzo Gonzalez Cacho.  This poor boy was murdered almost four years ago, and her family are clear suspects, and yet no one has done nothing.  Keeping in mind that they cleaned the crime scene was enough reason to put them in jail since they disrupted evidence that could have led to the definitive capture of the murderer.  His mother is the murderer, or at least an accomplice, and yet she's free, roaming the streets, getting publicity and making headlines.  To this day, this case has not been solved, and there have been many obvious signs that his mother took part in the murder, since in the same night that happened, she was under the effects of drugs, and she was with two more people if I'm not mistaken.  She claims she didn't remember anything, and then she changes the story up every time.  And no one has done anything to put this murderer behind bars.  Hooray for justice, right?

 

In conclusion, justice is an illusion invented by man to deceit and lie to society, and people use justice oftentimes for the wrong reasons, and they twist their ideologies, making innocent people pay for crimes they didn't commit.  Society as a whole is victim to this corrupt system, and sadly, if this keeps on going the way it is, the future won't hold a place of safe haven for the poor and helpless, because this so called "justice" will work it's way to make peoples lives miserable.  While justice may work sometimes, at most times it works for the rich and not the poor.  So the next time  you see a heartbreaking news broadcast of a murder or a rape, or anything related to crime, and there's no results, ask yourself this: Does justice truly exist?   Feel free to state your comments below.  Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Edited January 25, 201411 yr by Golden Fighter

I know I personally have no definition of Justice for myself- what is it? Revenge, the law, an eye for an eye? I think Justice is something different to different people, while I personally have no definition for it in regard to myself others run around preaching it. Like Hakumen

To the innocent and the poor, it is the divine law that punishes criminals and puts them in their place, and assures that society is in order.  But what does justice mean in the eyes of politics and the government? To them, it's all about money.  Whoever has the biggest buck gets justice, while the truly innocent are in jail, rotting for crimes they didn't commit.  

 

 

You open the essay with the question of "What is Justice?" but I don't think you spend enough time actually examining the term. The problem is that you're making very large assumptions about social groupings without really having any sources to cite. You automatically assume the poor are full of virtue and the wealthy to be wicked and corrupt, but really, this is kind of an over-romanticized Robin Hood approach to things, not accounting for individuality and free will. It also automatically equates moral stature with monetary gain, which I think is a hard line to tow. 

 

This brings into question just how blind society is to one another, and it just proves that humans have a natural tendency to bring each other down. 

 

 

Again, making broad generalizations about society is dangerously hard to prove. That would almost have to be an essay all on its own. 

 

An example of this can be seen in the anime Pyscho-Pass.  In the near future, technology has evolved to the point that criminal activity can be instantly monitored by a special form of identification in people known as the Psycho-Pass.  This determines a person's criminal tendencies, and if their crime coefficient is too high, they are either brought to jail or are killed.  This brings into question the state of justice that exists within this technology, as we see in the first episode, where a woman is raped by a psychopath.  After witnessing the death of her rapist, the psychological trauma makes her crime coefficient rise through the roof, and it labels her a criminal without her even committing a crime.  So she has to die because of the trauma she just went through?  I say that it's a twisted form of justice, one that really brings into mind the value of humanity in a person's soul.

 

 

I would recommend against referencing fictional material as an argument for real life events, as the fiction has the benefit of panning out as the author desires it to, based on his or her own natural biases and agendas, and thus really can't be said to be solid fact. 

 

Second, this isn't so much a matter of justice so much as it is questioning the methods of crime prevention, putting too much faith in science over the unpredictable nature of mankind, and free will. It would be questioning justice if the show was looking at whether or not the rapist deserved to die, whether or not it is the responsibility of the state or individual to bestow such judgement, and whether or not the person who committed the murder would be held legally liable.

 

To make a more realistic example, here's a recent case that was solved just a few days ago.  Carmen Paredes was murdered by her husband Pablo Casellas, and yet it took the investigative team two years to label him the culprit, with concrete evidence having shown it was him.  The publicity ensued, and only two days ago did the judge and jury finally came with the verdict that he was guilty, and now, because of the crimes he committed, he'll spend 129 years in prison, basically his whole life.  But to think that the police and the authorities took so much time to investigate such an obvious case is questionable, since if they really wanted to get him from the get go, they should have analyzed the evidence in every detail and put him in jail.

 

 

Again, this isn't so much a commentary on justice as it is on the legal procedures regarding being able to prove someone guilty beyond doubt. Keep in mind that although the legal system might seem to be overly protective at times, especially in apparent open and shut cases, such a system exists primarily for the benefit of ensuring justice, in that any citizen cannot be tried in a kangaroo court, without representation, or be found guilty without adequate proof. While it might hinder murder trials, it also makes sure that people can't be dragged out into the prisons without due process on the whims of those in a position of power.

 

Another example is the case of Lorenzo Gonzalez Cacho.  This poor boy was murdered almost four years ago, and her family are clear suspects, and yet no one has done nothing.  Keeping in mind that they cleaned the crime scene was enough reason to put them in jail since they disrupted evidence that could have led to the definitive capture of the murderer.  His mother is the murderer, or at least an accomplice, and yet she's free, roaming the streets, getting publicity and making headlines.  To this day, this case has not been solved, and there have been many obvious signs that his mother took part in the murder, since in the same night that happened, she was under the effects of drugs, and she was with two more people if I'm not mistaken.  She claims she didn't remember anything, and then she changes the story up every time.  And no one has done anything to put this murderer behind bars.  Hooray for justice, right?

 

Essentially, what I said before in the previous paragraph. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, if there is any reason to doubt that a person did not commit a crime, then they cannot be held liable. Again, it might seem unfair, but then again, you more or less said in your paragraph on the Psycho-Pass situation, in which someone was being charged without adequate proof, that you were against exactly the kind of speedy court process you seem to be advocating here.

 

In conclusion, justice is an illusion invented by man to deceit and lie to society, and people use justice oftentimes for the wrong reasons, and they twist their ideologies, making innocent people pay for crimes they didn't commit.

 

 

Again, is this justice, or the legal system, to which you are referring? Because in both real life murder cases, you seem to be demanding some kind of repercussion or satisfaction granted as a result of these crimes taking place, which might be considered as the very concept of justice. However, the way that this idea is implemented seems to be what you are taking issue with, not the idea of justice itself. 

You open the essay with the question of "What is Justice?" but I don't think you spend enough time actually examining the term. The problem is that you're making very large assumptions about social groupings without really having any sources to cite. You automatically assume the poor are full of virtue and the wealthy to be wicked and corrupt, but really, this is kind of an over-romanticized Robin Hood approach to things, not accounting for individuality and free will. It also automatically equates moral stature with monetary gain, which I think is a hard line to tow. 

 

 

Again, making broad generalizations about society is dangerously hard to prove. That would almost have to be an essay all on its own. 

 

 

I would recommend against referencing fictional material as an argument for real life events, as the fiction has the benefit of panning out as the author desires it to, based on his or her own natural biases and agendas, and thus really can't be said to be solid fact. 

 

Second, this isn't so much a matter of justice so much as it is questioning the methods of crime prevention, putting too much faith in science over the unpredictable nature of mankind, and free will. It would be questioning justice if the show was looking at whether or not the rapist deserved to die, whether or not it is the responsibility of the state or individual to bestow such judgement, and whether or not the person who committed the murder would be held legally liable.

 

 

Again, this isn't so much a commentary on justice as it is on the legal procedures regarding being able to prove someone guilty beyond doubt. Keep in mind that although the legal system might seem to be overly protective at times, especially in apparent open and shut cases, such a system exists primarily for the benefit of ensuring justice, in that any citizen cannot be tried in a kangaroo court, without representation, or be found guilty without adequate proof. While it might hinder murder trials, it also makes sure that people can't be dragged out into the prisons without due process on the whims of those in a position of power.

 

 

Essentially, what I said before in the previous paragraph. Also, I think it's worth pointing out that in the concept of innocent until proven guilty, if there is any reason to doubt that a person did not commit a crime, then they cannot be held liable. Again, it might seem unfair, but then again, you more or less said in your paragraph on the Psycho-Pass situation, in which someone was being charged without adequate proof, that you were against exactly the kind of speedy court process you seem to be advocating here.

 

 

Again, is this justice, or the legal system, to which you are referring? Because in both real life murder cases, you seem to be demanding some kind of repercussion or satisfaction granted as a result of these crimes taking place, which might be considered as the very concept of justice. However, the way that this idea is implemented seems to be what you are taking issue with, not the idea of justice itself. 

You make very good points here Dave, and your right, I don't know with exact certainty what justice is, but my interpretation came out as it did.  And as for what I was specifying, I was referring to both terms of the meaning of justice.  And the thing with Lorenzo's case is that her Mom contradicts and changes up the story of the murder every single time, which is highly suspicious.  And her family wasn't supposed to clean the crime scene, because that was destroying evidence of the crime. Oh, and one thing I should also mention is that the poor boy could have been saved if his mom had taken him to the hospital, but she waited long after the crime scene was cleaned up to take him there instead of just immediately taking the boy to the hospital.  Anyhow, leave it to the detectives to crack this one. 

 

And for the Casellas case, he had a gun at his house, which would bring into consideration that he killed his own wife, and it was also because of some financial funds that he wanted for himself.  Anyhow, a pathologist (A scientist that studies dead bodies.) confirmed that the gun had indeed been used by him to kill his wife, and the fact that he denied it just made all the time on the case senseless.  But anyways, you make interesting and valid points here my friend.  I really liked reading your comments, for they provided a deep analysis, and I found it interesting to read your response.  Thanks for responding Dave.