Quake3World

Hi all nice forums you have here.

I'm starting out in my first year of law study and one of the most interesting concepts I've come across so far is the correlation between law and justice or, more to the point, is there actually a connection between the two?

I've come across many different opinions on this matter, with many people thinking lawyers are nothing more than money hungry guns for hire and that there is no real connection between law and justice.

What is your opinion/belief on this?

wow what a complex question. I'm going to leave this for nologic to answer.

I don't care to take a stab at the question just now, but where are you studying? Are you an undergraduate or graduate student?

ummm well this question you pose is way beyond any intelligence any of us normal q3w posters have. your best bet is to consult with kracus and maybe toxicbug.

sliver wrote:I don't care to take a stab at the question just now, but where are you studying? Are you an undergraduate or graduate student?

I'm studying at The University of Canberra doing a Master of Juris Doctor (postgraduate).

ek wrote:ummm well this question you pose is way beyond any intelligence any of us normal q3w posters have. your best bet is to consult with kracus and maybe toxicbug.

i believe freak would be able to handle this kind of question best.
(that is, if he catches him before he puts the tinfoil hat on)

ek wrote:ummm well this question you pose is way beyond any intelligence any of us normal q3w posters have. your best bet is to consult with kracus and maybe toxicbug.

I'm far too intelligent to post my wisdom about such unimportant topics.

Justice is just the result of breaking a law, and paying the price, right? Doesn't really matter what lawyers motives are, as long as they do their job.

Well many people have very differing opinions on what is justice, I believe it all depends on one's own beliefs and outlook on life. One person looking at a particular judicial result may believe justice to have been served whereas another person looking at the same judicial decision may feel a miscarriage of justice to have occurred. I believe it all depends on one's life experiences, judicial decisions are a method of finality and it is my opinion that justice is nothing more than a concept.

As far as your second comment is concerned I wholeheartedly agree with you. It is irrelevant what a lawyers motives are as long as they represent their client to the best of their ability.

the correlation between law and justice? i think its pretty clear that there is a correlation. law tries to draw up and i guess in a way objectify how "much" and in what way justice should be dealt (and i guess define what justice is).

of course law is much more than that too. its out there for procedural (sp) reasons and incentive reasons.

for example on the last part, if i commit 500 dollars worth of damage, most people would say in order for there to be straight up justice done, i must pay 500 dollars back in some form or other. but theres more to it than just that, law has to have some incentive out there for people to not do it to begin with. but as youre studying law, you probably already konw that. all im saying is that law is not just about justice, but a bit more than that.

anyway, thats what i think. havent thought about it too much (obviously), but if you want a more indepth discussion about it, yeah, ask toxic or kracus.

It doesn't have to be in-depth, I'm interested in everyones opinion however deep or brief.

I think the issue you're touching upon is the effectiveness of penalty. This is something I have thought about quite a lot recently, and I think it's something very difficult to guage.

Take the capitol punishment issue as an extreme example. Many who are against capitol punishment argue that it is not a deterrent to murder as it has not produced a decline in murder in the places it has been implemented. My argument to this is how many people actually commit murder while actually thinking about whether or not they will be caught? I would say next to none.

Justice is a relative term, like happiness, or money. It all depends on how the majority of a society views things.

I think law is there to scale justice so that it can't be abused. When people do something wrong and they are judged (not in trial but by people), it isn't based solely on what was done but also who did it. It disposes of favorable dispositions towards for example famous people.

True justice is having all the lawyers killed.

Survivor wrote:I think law is there to scale justice so that it can't be abused. When people do something wrong and they are judged (not in trial but by people), it isn't based solely on what was done but also who did it. It disposes of favorable dispositions towards for example famous people.

Yes very true, but what about the concept that those with more money can afford a better type of justice?

GONNAFISTYA wrote:True justice is having all the lawyers killed.

Then who would represent those in need?

the law is designed to preserve justice.
or something. i dunno i just made that up and it isn't really true.
so yea, i dunno.
talk to jules.

Law wrote:Yes very true, but what about the concept that those with more money can afford a better type of justice?

There will always be difference. The fact is that lawyers are simply people and they are not the same. But cases aren't won or lost simply by which lawyer you have, it also relies on the evidence and ultimately the judge/jury who although objective is/are still human and will always carry some prejudgments with them. We are only human and perfect equal representation is impossible. We can try to make it honest enough for all parties involved though.

I couldn't agree with you more.

Chupacabra wrote:the correlation between law and justice? i think its pretty clear that there is a correlation. law tries to draw up and i guess in a way objectify how "much" and in what way justice should be dealt (and i guess define what justice is).

of course law is much more than that too. its out there for procedural (sp) reasons and incentive reasons.

for example on the last part, if i commit 500 dollars worth of damage, most people would say in order for there to be straight up justice done, i must pay 500 dollars back in some form or other. but theres more to it than just that, law has to have some incentive out there for people to not do it to begin with. but as youre studying law, you probably already konw that. all im saying is that law is not just about justice, but a bit more than that.

anyway, thats what i think. havent thought about it too much (obviously), but if you want a more indepth discussion about it, yeah, ask toxic or kracus.

In fact, your idea that law itself is supposed to act as a deterrent is open to debate as well.

My convictions tell me that law only exists as a statement of the people's confidence in their government to be representative of their interests. Law, and its definition and purpose, is different for every society.

Here in the States, we have 3 documents that essentially make up the "10 Commandments" of the law, if you'll forgive a religious reference. Those documents are what define the purpose of our laws in this country.
They state that this Republic exists for the sole purpose of serving its citizens, and protecting certain rights that are natural and inalienable to them. That is the purpose of the Republic itself, and therefore also of the laws that follow from it.

What you are talking about in your hypothetical scenario is tort law, and it covers a huge, grey mess of different situations and perceived wrongs. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tort_law )

I personally think it's safe to say that the founders' idea for tort law, was to restore to a person whatever had been taken from them, or to return them to the position they were in before the wrong was committed against them.

When you begin creating laws with deterrence in mind, you are by definition entering the field of social engineering, and in my humble opinion that is a separate discipline from real law altogether -- in fact it is what gives law a bad name the majority of the time.

IMO, justice is the objective act of restitution towards a person who has been wronged -- in a perfect scenario, the wrong will have been made as if it never happened, except for the memory of the thing itself. Unfortunately that is impossible to do in most cases, hence the grey area.

And once there is a grey area, then there is profit to be made for unscrupulous lawyers who don't care about the law itself.

LawL wrote:Hi all nice forums you have here.

I'm starting out in my first year of law study and one of the most interesting concepts I've come across so far is the correlation between law and justice or, more to the point, is there actually a connection between the two?

I've come across many different opinions on this matter, with many people thinking lawyers are nothing more than money hungry guns for hire and that there is no real connection between law and justice.

What is your opinion/belief on this?

lol, check this bullshit out

obessesed!

he flunked out pretty fast and had to change his name from law to lawl...

hello i'm asking a question about jurisprudence on a computer game forum that i've only just registered on because that's a pretty normal thing to do and i'm not an alt, honest, lol

BawL forgot about his own alt background story