Justice is blind...is it always?

[shadenexus18]

What's the origin or meaning behind "justice is blind, not deaf"? Do you also have your own definition?

If you didn't know or have forgotten the meaning of "blind justice", then here's a refresher.

It means that a person is supposed to be given a fair trial with zero bias from the judge or jury...a trial to decide whether this particular person is innocent or guilty.

The traditional visual symbol of "Justice" is a blindfolded woman holding scales and a sword. The scales are for weighing right and wrong; the sword is to punish the guilty; the blindfold is to show that she is impartial (i.e. that she does not treat friends differently from strangers, or high-ranking people better than humble ones, because she does not "see" them). But she is not deaf, because she listens to all the evidence put before her.

However, sadly this is not always the case. Justice isn't always blind. Observe.

- Our societies so called important people, namely celebrities, are given special treatment.
For a big time criminal offense more often then not, they get a slap on the wrist, probation, good behavior, or no punishment what so ever. If it were an everyday person, they would get the book thrown at them indefinitely.

- Sometimes the police fail to find the culprit, or the perpetraitor got off from a technicality. (Ex. the culprit escaped past U.S. borders into another country/continent, or there wasn't enough evidence to convict him/her.)

- In some states if the individual looks guilty then he is guilty. I've seen this happen mainly due to ethnic prejudice and gender. With that being said, the person is given a cruel and unusual sentence.

---------------------------------
Are there any instances where you saw that "justice wasn't blind?" What is your stance on this? Discuss.

 

[Marty]

I don't understand what you're trying to get at here. That there are examples of less than fair court rulings? Well ... yeah? This isn't exactly the top story on the nine o'clock news.

 

[Scott!]

Justice will never be blind as long as it's being delivered by humans to humans. For it to be fair, it would have to be done by a computer, or some sort of algorithm that takes the decision-making away from people. Otherwise, personal bias will come into it at some point or other.

But then again, do we really even want our justice blind? A big part of crime is intent. Did the accused intend to commit the crime? That plays a big role in determining their punishment, and even their crime. But can a program determine if someone meant to do it? And while we could conceivably remove the human element from the decision-making side of justice, we can't remove it from those doing the crime. Every criminal is a different person. Each of them has motives, and sometimes, their motives aren't wrong. Should a poor parent who steals food to feed their kids be punished the same as someone who just steals for the fun of it? This is sort of getting back to intent, but motive and intent are different.

Also, I don't think it's fair to say that uncaught criminals are an example of the failings of our judicial system. The police attempted to catch them so that justice could be served, but the criminals got away. And while justice isn't served, it isn't the fault of the judicial system in that case.

As for people getting off on technicalities or due to lack of evidence, that's true that justice was not served. But if justice were blind, it would only see the evidence. It wouldn't have gut feelings of someone's guilt. So if there isn't enough evidence, they wouldn't be convicted.

 

[127crazie]

Justice will never be blind as long as it's being delivered by humans to humans. For it to be fair, it would have to be done by a computer, or some sort of algorithm that takes the decision-making away from people. Otherwise, personal bias will come into it at some point or other.

Right. The variety in human behavior makes it impossible to perfectly rule everything by the same scale. While a bias in court does have its fair share of problems, it does generate more results. Our legal system wouldn't get anywhere anytime soon if computers somehow handled all of it. It's not absolute, but hey, there could be far worse problems with it.

 

[KingJiggyWiggy]

I understand perfectly. My dad was put in prison for child **** even though there was no dna or evidence. It was all up to the jury and the police department's video interview with the children (3 of whom my dad doesn't even know). In cases like these it all comes down to the word of the child brain washing the jury before the defendant gets a chance to show his story. Now he is in prison for 15 to life, in San Quentin (that's where the biggest, baddest criminals in America go). There is no justice in this court system.

 

[LLDL]

I understand perfectly. My dad was put in prison for child **** even though there was no dna or evidence. It was all up to the jury and the police department's video interview with the children (3 of whom my dad doesn't even know). In cases like these it all comes down to the word of the child brain washing the jury before the defendant gets a chance to show his story. Now he is in prison for 15 to life, in San Quentin (that's where the biggest, baddest criminals in America go). There is no justice in this court system.

thats messed up. Things like this happen all the time sady, And then 40 to 50 years later while someone is reviewing the case, they're like "oops, he was innocent afterall!" And either they let him out then, or that person has already died in prision. Drives me crazy.