Justice or Mercy?

[Da Skinna]

Justice means to mete out damage with equal measure.

Mercy means forgiving that damage, or least forgetting it.


Does not mercy transcend justice because instead of looking at the immediate damages and adding a sense of parity, it looks into the future and places a heavy burden, physical or not, on the one who committed the crime. It looks past that and asks what they can do in the future that is beneficial to the whole.

Is mercy more forward-thinking? Progressive? Civilized?

[Gaidin]

Is mercy more forward-thinking? Progressive? Civilized?

What happens in a society without consequences?

[Da Skinna]

Consequences for what? All things illegal?

[Kiljan Arslan]

Consequences for ones actions.

[Da Skinna]

Based on what scale? In which measure?

Surely, marijuana possession and aggravated assault don't weigh the same do they? They're not even measured with the same scale.

[gaius valerius]

That scale is the result of social conventions is it not? Murder is much more severe than smoking weed (unless you're a radical right born again christian? ). I don't think it's about justice or mercy. IMO it's about justice AND mercy. Both should go combined, not separate.

[basics]

gaius valerius,

Well this right-wing fundamentalist born again Christian doesn't see any difference in the make up of what is deemed justice. All sin is sin and will be judged, the merits of how good or bad the sin is has no bearing on the matter in the eyes of God.

However since it is man's justice we talk of here, that is laws made by man, can it really be said that justice exists more than the so-called mercy meted out in the name of justice? By that I mean that mercy has become more or less no more than an excuse to get out of what justice should be.

For example why is it more justified to condemn an old person to prison without mercy for not paying his council tax when someone who has booted another to death is given in mercy a muted sentence? Both have broken the law yet one is shown nothing whilst the other for some reason is deemed worthy of sympathy which mercy really is.

We have this rather ridiculous idea nowadays that the most heinous killers can be turned around yet most of us struggle to obey the smallest laws never mind the large ones such as violence and murder. For that we can blame those sections within society who see all as being good when the opposite is the norm.

We have laws to keep men within the bounds of what society deems workable to that society. We have justice when those bounds are crossed and justice is only as good as the law that demands certain retribution for breaking the rules.

When laws are overtaken by too much mercy, these laws become diminished, thus making for shrinking borders and weaker society, the likes of which Britain today is going through. Oh, I can hear already the cry that crime is down and perhaps in the case of recorded crime there is a little truth in that. But when one looks at unrecorded crime, or live on the streets, one can see the opposite.

[King Yngvar]

Justice comes first, a society without justice leads to anarchy.

[gaius valerius]

gaius valerius,

Well this right-wing fundamentalist born again Christian...

That was a joke you know .

Though what you say isn't untrue, your conclusios will never be mine. Justice and mercy go combined. With mercy I don't imply that we should let killers of the hook. Besides, grumpy old men going to jail for not paying taxes? Not in my country anyway, they get of the hook with a fine and in worst case conditional release. Murderers on the other hand do get sometimes stupid sentences ('life' which in reality means 25 years, which in realty means 7 years). In some cases that can be just, but true killers get life multiple times so they'd never get out. I don't think society is to lax in this. But you know, views differ. You can laugh at me from heaven when your vision comes true, you right wing born-again christian, I'll be slacking of in hell, sunbathing

[Da Skinna]

There is a combination every time, but one will always be relied on more.

I think in our lighter, more pleasant moods we would all say "mercy". If we were down and miserable or angry at the world or periodically supercynical about people then it would be "justice".

[roy34543]

Justice is important, Mercy is frankly speaking derived from the emotional part of ourselves created by the fact that justice is never perfect, its either too much or too little.
Justice is what keeps people on the right track, If people were doing fine anyway then good for them. If people do something wrong then they should be dealt justice.
Obviously though , Bill gates stealing a loaf of bread is a far worse crime then a hungry person doing it. The same justice for them just wouldnt be justice. So mercy is derived by our emotions that tell us that the punishment is just too much under the conditions. Mercy can of course be wrong just as justice can .
In general justice is infitly more important then mercy , The worst thing a bad punishment can do is alienate a person into doing worse in which case (basically speaking) he cant really be helped to be good. And even thats rare. But mercy can get people thinking they can do whatever they want. Which is bad.

[Haakon]

Justice for those that deserves it.

[Irishman]

Justice means to mete out damage with equal measure.

Mercy means forgiving that damage, or least forgetting it.

Justice does not mean an 'eye for an eye'. Justice means to give one what they deserve, whether it is punishment or reward for an action.

This does not stipulate what the just response is to every action.

Mercy is not giving one what they deserve.

The two cannot exist together, as it is impossible to 'deserve mercy' as the very fact you deserve it makes it not merciful.

Does not mercy transcend justice because instead of looking at the immediate damages and adding a sense of parity, it looks into the future and places a heavy burden, physical or not, on the one who committed the crime. It looks past that and asks what they can do in the future that is beneficial to the whole.

Is mercy more forward-thinking? Progressive? Civilized?

This stems from a flawed view of what justice is. In a perfectly just world, there would be no mercy.

[Da Skinna]

Justice does not mean an 'eye for an eye'. Justice means to give one what they deserve, whether it is punishment or reward for an action.

This does not stipulate what the just response is to every action.

Mercy is not giving one what they deserve.

The two cannot exist together, as it is impossible to 'deserve mercy' as the very fact you deserve it makes it not merciful.


This stems from a flawed view of what justice is. In a perfectly just world, there would be no mercy.

In a perfectly just world, there'd be no crime.

Mercy isn't giving one what they deserve, it's looking at what they did and deciding the best thing is to, with inclusion and participation of the person, work towards redemption in some measure.

And justice is to mete damage with the same measure, you rob someone, you get put in jail for the alotted time in accordance to the severity of the robbery. If it's coupled with battery, the sentence will be worse. See?

[Irishman]

Mercy isn't giving one what they deserve, it's looking at what they did and deciding the best thing is to

I never said that mercy is giving one what they deserve, it is forgiving one when they do not deserve it.

And justice is to mete damage with the same measure

Not true (see definition on bottom)

you get put in jail for the alotted time in accordance to the severity of the robbery

Because you deserve it.

If it's coupled with battery, the sentence will be worse. See?

Because it is a more dangerous and harmful crime and under the law one deserves more punishment.

Justice:

1 a: the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments b: judge c: the administration of law; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity
2 a: the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b (1): the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness c: the quality of conforming to law
3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness

Main Entry: mer·cy
Pronunciation: \ˈmər-sē\
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural mercies
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French merci, from Medieval Latin merced-, merces, from Latin, price paid, wages, from merc-, merx merchandise
Date: 13th century
1 a: compassion or forbearance shown especially to an offender or to one subject to one's power; also : lenient or compassionate treatment <begged for mercy> b: imprisonment rather than death imposed as penalty for first-degree murder
2 a: a blessing that is an act of divine favor or compassion b: a fortunate circumstance <it was a mercy they found her before she froze>
3: compassionate treatment of those in distress <works of mercy among the poor>

As you can see, justice and mercy are exactly as I defined them. You cannot simply make up definitions to fit your argument.

Definitions from Mirriam Webster

[roy34543]

Well that sort of kills the point of the thread.
Lets assume justice and mercy where what he said they were for lack of better words to fill the vacancy.

[Irishman]

Well that sort of kills the point of the thread.

I know.

Lets assume justice and mercy where what he said they were for lack of better words to fill the vacancy.

That is my point though, he defined them in such a way as if we accept his definitions (which are wrong) we pretty much have to agree with him. Of course, this accomplishes nothing.

I would say that the question ought to be, using the real definitions, should mercy be incorporated into a perfectly just legal system, knowing that technically you would be giving them something they do not deserve.

[Spiff]

I would think of mercy as a concept between individuals, whereas justice tends to be aspired to by a states law and enforced equally where appropriate.

I don't think the law is concerned with mercy in the strictest sense as to me this makes it sound rather arbitrary as to who receives mercy and who does not. 'Mitigating factors' on the other hand may be relevant when deciding on the facts of a case, circumstances in a crime are very important in establishing what is 'just'.

The concept of mercy in the first post, on the other hand, doesn't sound too appealing to me. Speculating a brain surgeon may save lives in the future would not be a good reason to give him a more lenient sentence if he was guilty of murder, for example.

[Da Skinna]

I never said that mercy is giving one what they deserve, it is forgiving one when they do not deserve it.

Lol, I read it wrong, my bad.


And those weren't definitions, they are interpretations. You'll see in a court of law, justice is meted out by years in prison.

And my analogy was bad for the point I'm trying to make. Both things are bad, robbery and battery. But I was meaning severity of "justice" by means of punishment. Robbing an old lady's house isn't the same severity (of both breadth of cruelty and punishment) as robbing the old lady's house, and when she came downstairs to see what the commotion was, rather than run out, instead beat her over the head with a shoetree.

They're both bad. But robbery for sake of feeding one's family, or something cheesy like that, and then robbery for the money, DVD player, shoetree, AND the cruelty of beating senseless an old lady.

Justice, as interpreted by me, and Mercy, as interpreted by me, which one is more progressive in such instances, which one is more apt for which? Which combination?

[Irishman]

And my analogy was bad for the point I'm trying to make. Both things are bad, robbery and battery. But I was meaning severity of "justice" by means of punishment. Robbing an old lady's house isn't the same severity (of both breadth of cruelty and punishment) as robbing the old lady's house, and when she came downstairs to see what the commotion was, rather than run out, instead beat her over the head with a shoetree.

They're both bad. But robbery for sake of feeding one's family, or something cheesy like that, and then robbery for the money, DVD player, shoetree, AND the cruelty of beating senseless an old lady.

I don't understand the point of this. Are you saying that justice does not take into account context? This is patently untrue if you look at the definition it states fairness.

Or are you asking how severe a punishment is warranted.

As it stands though, I do not agree with your interpretation of "justice" as it does not stay true to the definition. A legal system which kills a thief is NOT a just system. Mercy has no place in a legal system, as everything needs to be fair and equitable treatment, in both reward and punishment. When you incorporate mercy (or the act of not punishing one person when they deserve to (or other people would) be punished) you open the door for favoritism and inequitable punishments for identical crimes.