Principles of Justice Theories - Essay Example

Principles of Justice Theories The theory of justice is a book that is about political philosophy and ethics that was written by John Rawls. In this book the author tries to solve the problems of distributive justice by basing his solutions on the principles of the social contract. In the end, he came up with the theory known as justice as fairness. According to the writer, justice calls for a need for reconciliation both in liberty and equality. Those who are affected by the system of justice tend to be judged unequally and this is mostly done with reference to an individuals’ social status or class in the society. He was against such tests and preferences that were placed on people in the society as it encouraged conflict in the society (Amartya, 2009). There was need to have a fair choice of situation for those who had been affected by matters related to justice so that they could all feel that they were all equal before the law. It was evident that the rich had a fair hand when it came to handling justice activities and would be left to go freely while the poor were frustrated even in the case where it was evident that the mistake had been committed by the rich. These are some of the aspects that pushed Rawl to fight against such behavior. Freedom of speech had been denied to the poor and they did not have a right to talk before the justice panels making them suffer for the mistakes they did not commit. It is the amount of money that had been paid by an individual that determined whether he would be set free or not. Principles of Justice Theories Rawls was a member of the social contract tradition and it is from this membership that he was able to come up with the principles of justice. He developed an artificial device for his theories known as the original position in which they were to come up with the principles from an ignorance point of view. This point of ignorance was referred to as the veil of ignorance and the veil was meant to bring people in their thoughts and the facts they had about what justice was. He argued that most people were unaware of matters related to their social status in society, distribution of abilities, intelligence, strength among others and that is why he saw them as being under the veil of ignorance (Rawls, 1975). He saw that by being able to ignore these details, it would result in fairness for all. First Principle of Justice In the first principle, Liberty is the key factor for all those who were affected by the process of justice in the society. Liberty was expected to be an equal right for all and had to be compatible so that it could be extended to others. This can be attributed to the rights that an individual cannot be denied while in his own country. He should be allowed to have political liberty where he is free to vote the politician of his choice and allow them to run office. Freedom of assembly and speech should be granted where they can meet with their colleagues and exchange ideas that will bring about development. They should be allowed to give their views about issues affecting their government without the fear for arrest or torture. Freedom to own property is another aspect of this principle. Private property should be respected by the public and individuals should be allowed to immerse as much wealth as they can, provided it is legal. Arbitrary arrest should not be encouraged among people. Before arresting one, explain to him his mistakes so that he can contact his lawyers. This enables them to prepare for the case in advance in order to avoid the unfair judgment. This is one principle that cannot be violated for the sake of the second principle. It is possible for some of the liberties to conflict hence the need to merge them in order for them to be able to obtain a clear system of their rights. The Second Principle of Justice It insists on the need for people to be provided with social and economic equalities so that they can be of advantage to the less advantaged in the society. The society tends to marginalize the less disadvantaged in the society especially the women and children leaving them oppressed. This calls for a need to have laws or principles that will ensure that the less advantaged can also be able to address their needs without the fear of being victimized. The principle therefore seeks to protect the interests of these groups. In this principle, offices and job positions have to be availed equally to all in terms of quality and opportunity (Rawls, 1975). Everyone has a right to work anywhere irrespective of their status in the society or sexual orientations. If one is qualified for the job they should be given the opportunity to exercise their skills so as to be able to improve them with time. These principles are relevant in our lives in the sense that they are meant to improve the worse situation for people in the society so that it can be manageable for all the classes in the society. One does not need to worsen the previous situation of the less disadvantaged but improve it so that the less disadvantaged can be able to manage it better without the fear of being convicted. Traditional Utilitarianism Here it is argued that actions can only be considered to be right from an ethical point of view if the utilities produced by it are greater that the utilities that have been produced by another act. This implies that finally, only one action can be regarded as being right compared to other alternatives. It is argued that any benefit that are brought about whether present or in future have to be put into consideration. It is upon the individual to determine whether there are any alternatives that are likely to affect his actions. Both the direct and indirect benefits have to be put in place in order for the action to be evaluated appropriately. Given the fact that actions and policies are available to anyone at any time, it serves as a merit for them to judge each other’s actions (Arvan, 2008). This brings with it a difference when compared to the two principles in the sense that the principles tend to advocate for equality as opposed to the utilitarianisms’ who find one’s action as being vital in restraining certain actions. It is possible that people could pretend when exposed to the system of justice in order to appear to be innocent in their deeds Modern Criminal Justice Agencies It is defined as a set of the legal and social institutions that are found in the society with the main purpose of dealing with the criminal law. Justice here follows a set of rules in a given procedure (Rawls, 1975). According to the modern agencies, the justice system undertakes specified responsibilities including policing, courts and corrections. In policing, it is the police who usually come into first contact with the offender and then make an arrest. If the suspect is dangerous to the whole nation or world in general, then a notice is created so that the citizens can be aware of him. If warranted, the police have a right to use force when making arrests or legal coercion in order to effect public or social order. Courts now serve as a venue for settling disputes and as a place where justice is administered. The court room work group is served with the role of administering justice to the convicted (Rawls, 1975). They sentence the criminal once he has been found to be guilty. On being convicted, they are introduced to various correctional facilities or institutions where the aim is for them to rehabilitate their moves. Others are turned to the correctional authorities for rehabilitation. Punishment has taken different forms in society and with civilization; there has been the creation of more prisons to accommodate the offenders. This is opposed to the idea that traditionally, exile and execution were the common forms of punishment. Monetary fines are also common within the courts as a form of correction. Juvenile delinquents from the courts are taken to rehabilitation centers where they are trained in skills that can keep them busy. Security Justice and security can be viewed as being of two sides of the same coin in the sense that it is through security that justice is obtained. The two serve as a tool for the peace builders. Without security and justice in the society, the long term prospects of development are easily broken down and hard to achieve. The two concepts tend to be a major concern for the poor in the fragile areas. This is attributed to the fact that they are the most affected when it comes to the process of attaining justice and security. Without the two, it becomes a challenge for people to access the public goods and services. This therefore implies that it is always advisable to support the country in ensuring delivery of both security and justice (Liu, 2001). As for the state on the other hand, it is served with the irreducible role of ensuring that it sets minimum standards that have to be adhered to by every citizen. Through such rules and regulations, it becomes easier to ensure that the citizens maintain law and order. They are able to establish networks amongst themselves and come up with policies and working frameworks that will guide their conduct (Liu, 2001). The socialization process should be one that aims at ensuring people remain behaved members of the society. Security on the other hand will ensure that people do not live in fear always while justice ensures that everyone is treated equally before the law. By maintaining security, the police are able to arrest the offenders and leave the role of convicting them to the justice system. The two therefore work hand in hand since without one the other cannot be successful. References Amartya, S. (2009). The idea of justice. Havard: Havard University Press. Arvan, M. S. (2008). A non-ideal theory of justice. Toronto: Proquest. Liu, F. (2001). Environmental justice analysis: theories, methods, and practice. Toronto: Lewis Publishers. Nagel, T. "Rawls on Justice," The Philosophical Review. Vol. 82. (2). (Apr., 1973). Rawls J. (1975). A theory of justice. Harvard: Harvard University Press. Read More