Justice

==Theories==
===Introduction===
{{further|Justice (virtue)|Cardinal virtues}}
[[File:Bonino da Campione, Justice, c. 1357, NGA 46013.jpg|thumb|Bonino da Campione, ''Justice'', {{circa|1357}}, [[National Gallery of Art]]]]It has been said<ref>See, e.g., Eric Heinze, ''The Concept of Injustice'' (Routledge, 2013), pp. 4–10, 50–60.</ref> that 'systematic' or 'programmatic' political and moral philosophy in the West begins, in [[Plato]]'s [[Plato Republic|Republic]], with the question, 'What is Justice?'<ref>Plato, ''The Republic'', Book I, 331b–c.</ref> According to most contemporary theories of justice, justice is overwhelmingly important: [[John Rawls]] claims that "Justice is the first virtue of social institutions, as truth is of systems of thought."<ref>John Rawls, ''A Theory of Justice'' (revised edn, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), p. 3</ref> In classical approaches, evident from [[Plato]] through to [[John Rawls|Rawls]], the concept of 'justice' is always construed in logical or 'etymological' opposition to the concept of injustice. Such approaches cite various examples of injustice, as problems which a theory of justice must overcome. A number of post-World War II approaches do, however, challenge that seemingly obvious dualism between those two concepts.<ref>*See, e.g., Eric Heinze, ''The Concept of Injustice'' (Routledge, 2013).
* Clive Barnett ''The Priority of Injustice: Locating Democracy in Critical Theory''</ref> Justice can be thought of as distinct from [[wikt:benevolence|benevolence]], [[Charity (virtue)|charity]], [[prudence (virtue)|prudence]], [[mercy]], [[generosity]], or [[compassion]], although these dimensions are regularly understood to also be interlinked. Justice is the concept of [[cardinal virtue]]s, of which it is one.<ref>{{Citation|last=Wenar|first=Leif|title=John Rawls|date=2021|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2021/entries/rawls/|encyclopedia=The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy|editor-last=Zalta|editor-first=Edward N.|edition=Summer 2021|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|access-date=2021-05-20}}</ref> Metaphysical justice has often been associated with concepts of [[destiny|fate]], [[reincarnation]] or [[Divine Providence]], i.e., with a life in accordance with a cosmic plan.

The equivalence of justice and fairness has been historically and culturally established.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Daston|first=Lorraine|author-link=Lorraine Daston|year=2008|journal=Daedalus|pages=5–14|title=Life, Chance and Life Chances|doi=10.1162/daed.2008.137.1.5|volume=137|s2cid=57563698|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Equality before the law===
Law raises important and complex issues about equality, fairness, and justice. There is an old saying that '[[All are equal before the law]]'. The belief in equality before the law is called legal egalitarianism. In criticism of this belief, the author [[Anatole France]] said in 1894, "In its majestic equality, the law forbids [[rich and poor alike]] to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets, and steal loaves of bread."<ref>(France, ''The Red Lily'', [http://www.online-literature.com/anatole-france/red-lily/8/ Chapter VII]).</ref> With this saying, France illustrated the fundamental shortcoming of a theory of legal equality that remains blind to social inequality; the same law applied to all may have disproportionately harmful effects on the least powerful.

===Relational justice===
Relational justice examines individual connections and societal relationships, focusing on normative and political aspects. Rawls' theory of justice aims to distribute social goods to benefit the poor, but does not consider power relations, political structures, or social meanings. Even Rawls' self-respect is not compatible with distribution.<ref>Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions ([[Rowman & Littlefield|Lexington Books]], 2015), ch.10 ({{ISBN|978-1498516518}})</ref> Iris Marion Young charges that distributive accounts of justice fail to provide an adequate way of conceptualizing political justice in that they fail to take into account many of the demands of ordinary life and that a relational view of justice grounded upon understanding the differences among social groups offers a better approach, one which acknowledges unjust power relations among individuals, groups, and institutional structures.<ref>[[Iris Marion Young]], Justice and the Politics of Difference ([[Oxford University Press]], 1990).</ref> Young Kim also takes a relational approach to the question of justice, but departs from Iris Marion Young's political advocacy of group rights and instead, he emphasizes the individual and moral aspects of justice.<ref>Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions ([[Rowman & Littlefield|Lexington Books]], 2015) ({{ISBN|978-1498516518}})</ref> As to its moral aspects, he said that justice includes responsible actions based on rational and autonomous moral agency, with the individual as the proper bearer of rights and responsibilities. Politically, he maintains that the proper context for justice is a form of liberalism with the traditional elements of liberty and equality, together with the concepts of diversity and tolerance.

===Classical liberalism===
Equality before the law is one of the basic principles of [[classical liberalism]].<ref name="kukathas" /><ref name="evans" /> Classical liberalism calls for equality before the law, not for [[equality of outcome]].<ref name="kukathas">[[Chandran Kukathas]], "Ethical Pluralism from a Classical Liberal Perspective", in ''The Many and the One: Religious and Secular Perspectives on Ethical Pluralism in the Modern World'', ed. Richard Madsen and Tracy B. Strong, Ethikon Series in Comparative Ethics (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2003), 61 ({{ISBN|0-691-09993-6}}).</ref> Classical liberalism opposes pursuing [[group rights]] at the expense of [[individual rights]].<ref name="evans">Mark Evans, ed., ''Edinburgh Companion to Contemporary Liberalism: Evidence and Experience'' (London: Routledge, 2001), 55 ({{ISBN|1-57958-339-3}}).</ref> In addition to equality, individual liberty serves as a core notion of classical liberalism. As to the liberty component, British social and political theorist, philosopher, and historian of ideas [[Isaiah Berlin]] identifies positive and negative liberty in "Two Concepts of Liberty",<ref>Isaiah Berlin, "Two Concepts of Liberty" in ''Four Essays on Liberty'' (Oxford University Press, 1969)</ref> subscribing to a view of negative liberty, in the form of freedom from governmental interference. He further extends the concept of negative liberty in endorsing John Stuart Mills' harm principle: "the sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually and collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number, is self-protection",<ref>John Stuart Mill, "On Liberty" in ''John Stuart Mill on Liberty and Other Essays'', ed. John Gray (Oxford University Press, 1998)</ref> which represents a classical liberal view of liberty.<ref>Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions ([[Rowman & Littlefield|Lexington Books]], 2015), p.79 ({{ISBN|978-1498516518}})</ref>

===Equality===
In political theory, liberalism includes two traditional elements: liberty and equality. Most contemporary theories of justice emphasize the concept of equality, including Rawls' theory of justice as fairness. For Ronald Dworkin, a complex notion of equality is the sovereign political virtue.<ref>(Ronald Dworkin, Sovereign Virtue (Harvard University Press, 2000)</ref> Dworkin raises the question of whether society is under a duty of justice to help those responsible for the fact that they need help. Complications arise in distinguishing matters of choice and matters of chance, as well as justice for future generations in the redistribution of resources that he advocates.<ref>Young Kim, Justice as Right Actions ([[Rowman & Littlefield|Lexington Books]], 2015), ch.7 ({{ISBN|978-1498516518}})</ref>

===Equity===
In [[legal theory]], equity is seen as the concept connecting law to justice, since law cannot be applied without reference to justice.<ref>{{Cite book |last=Titi |first=Catharine |title=The Function of Equity in International Law |date=2021 |publisher=Oxford university press |isbn=978-0-19-886800-2 |location=Oxford |chapter=4}}</ref> In that context, justice is seen as 'the rationale and the ethical foundation of equity'.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Titi |first=Catharine |date=2023-08-14 |title=International law in quest for justice |url=https://blog.oup.com/2023/08/international-law-in-quest-for-justice/ |access-date=2024-02-18 |website=OUPblog |language=en}}</ref>

===Theories of sentencing===
In [[criminal law]], a [[Sentence (law)|sentence]] forms the final explicit act of a [[judge]]-ruled process, and also the symbolic principal act connected to his function.<ref>{{Cite web|title=laws rules justice|url=https://www.basicknowledge101.com/subjects/laws.html}}</ref> The sentence can generally involve a decree of [[prison|imprisonment]], a [[Fine (penalty)|fine]] and/or other [[punishment]]s against a [[defendant]] [[conviction (law)|convicted]] of a [[crime]]. Laws may specify the range of penalties that can be imposed for various offenses, and sentencing guidelines sometimes regulate what punishment within those ranges can be imposed given a certain set of offense and offender characteristics.<ref>{{Cite web|title=sentencing guidelines|website=[[Library of Congress]]|url=https://www.loc.gov/law/help/sentencing-guidelines/sentencing-guidelines.pdf}}</ref> The most common purposes of sentencing in legal theory are:

{| class="wikitable"
|- style="background:#b0c4de; text-align:center;"
! Theory
! Aim of theory
! Suitable punishment
|-
|[[Retributive justice|Retribution]]
| Punishment imposed for no reason other than an offense being committed, on the basis that if [[Eye for an eye|proportionate]], punishment is morally acceptable as a response that satisfies the aggrieved party, their intimates and society.
|
* Tariff sentences
* Sentence must be proportionate to the crime
|-
|[[Deterrence (legal)|Deterrence]]
|
* To the individual&nbsp;– the individual is deterred through fear of further punishment.
* To the general public&nbsp;– Potential offenders warned as to likely punishment
|
* Prison Sentence
* Heavy Fine
* Long sentence as an example to others
|-
|[[Rehabilitation (penology)|Rehabilitation]]
|To reform the offender's behavior
|
* Individualized sentences
* Community service orders
* moral education
* vocational education
|-
|[[Incapacitation (penology)|Incapacitation]]
|Offender is made incapable of committing further crime to protect society at large from crime
|
* Long prison sentence
* Electronic tagging
* Banning orders
|-
|[[Reparation (legal)|Reparation]]
|Repayment to victim(s) or to community
|
* Compensation
* Unpaid work
* Reparation Schemes
|-
|[[Denunciation (penology)|Denunciation]]
|Society expressing its disapproval reinforcing moral boundaries
|
* Reflects blameworthiness of offense
* punishment in public
* punishment reported to public

|-
|}

In [[civil law (common law)|civil cases]] the decision is usually known as a [[verdict]], or judgment, rather than a sentence.<ref>{{Cite web|title=how court works|url=https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/resources/law_related_education_network/how_courts_work/verdict/}}</ref> Civil cases are settled primarily by means of monetary compensation for harm done ("[[damages]]") and orders intended to prevent future harm (for example [[injunction]]s). Under some legal systems an award of damages involves some scope for retribution, denunciation and deterrence, by means of additional categories of damages beyond simple compensation, covering a [[Punitive damages|punitive effect, social disapprobation, and potentially, deterrence]], and occasionally [[Disgorgement (law)|disgorgement]] (forfeit of any gain, even if no loss was caused to the other party).

===Evolutionary perspectives===
[[Evolutionary ethic]]s and [[evolution of morality]] suggest [[evolutionary]] bases for the concept of justice.<ref>{{Cite book|title=Morality and evolutionary biology|year=2021|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University|url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/}}</ref> [[Biosocial criminology]] research says that human perceptions of what is appropriate criminal justice are based on how to respond to crimes in the ancestral small-group environment and that these responses may not always be appropriate for today's societies.<ref>{{Cite journal|title=Life History Predicts Perceptions of Procedural Justice and Crime Reporting Intentions|year=2015|doi=10.1007/s40806-015-0021-9|last1=Kruger|first1=Daniel J.|last2=Nedelec|first2=Joseph L.|last3=Reischl|first3=Thomas M.|last4=Zimmerman|first4=Marc A.|journal=Evolutionary Psychological Science|volume=1|issue=3|pages=183–194|s2cid=142324638|doi-access=free}}</ref>

===Reactions to fairness===
Studies at [[University of California, Los Angeles|UCLA]] in 2008 have indicated that reactions to fairness are "wired" into the brain and that, "Fairness is activating the same part of the brain that responds to food in rats... This is consistent with the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need".<ref>{{cite news |url=http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as-it-49042.aspx?link_page_rss=49042 |title=Brain reacts to fairness as it does to money and chocolate, study shows |work=UCLA Newsroom |publisher=UCLA |date=21 April 2008 |access-date=15 January 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100226000010/http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/brain-reacts-to-fairness-as-it-49042.aspx?link_page_rss=49042 |archive-date=26 February 2010 |url-status=dead }}</ref> Research conducted in 2003 at [[Emory University]] involving capuchin monkeys demonstrated that other cooperative animals also possess such a sense and that "[[inequity aversion]] may [[inequity aversion in animals|not be]] uniquely human".<ref>Nature 425, 297–299 (18 September 2003)</ref>

===Institutions and justice===
{{Main|Law}}

In a world where people are interconnected but they disagree, institutions are required to instantiate ideals of justice. These institutions may be justified by their approximate instantiation of justice, or they may be deeply unjust when compared with ideal standards&nbsp;– consider the institution of [[slavery]]. Justice is an ideal the world fails to live up to, sometimes due to deliberate opposition to justice despite understanding, which could be disastrous. The question of institutive justice raises issues of [[Legitimacy (political science)|legitimacy]], [[Legal procedure|procedure]], [[Codification (law)|codification]] and [[statutory interpretation|interpretation]], which are considered by legal theorists and by [[Philosophy of law|philosophers of law]].<ref>{{cite encyclopedia |title =Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy |author=David Miller |chapter=Justice |chapter-url=https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/justice/ |date=26 June 2017|publisher=Metaphysics Research Lab, Stanford University }}</ref> The United Nations [[Sustainable Development Goal 16]] emphasizes the need for strong institutions in order to uphold justice.<ref>{{Cite web|last=Doss|first=Eric|title=Sustainable Development Goal 16|url=https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/sdg-16/|access-date=2020-09-25|website=United Nations and the Rule of Law|language=en-US}}</ref>