British Expatriate Network

Are they the same thing? Is justice just the PC word for revenge? What does "closure" mean? Is that the hippylitically correct word for revenge?

Should they be the same thing? Or is justice something more than simple revenge? It seems to me that the lower down the scale of wrongdoing you are, the more it's about putting right what you did wrong -compensating people- and about learning a lesson not to do it again, and about people learning not to let you do it again. But when you get up to the point where what you did can't be put right (such as murder) it's only about revenge. Surely these are the cases where prevention is more important than revenge? Not just preventing that person from doing it again, but also deterring others.

Isn't revenge a lazy form of grief. Why deal with the source of the problem, why not just take revenge?
I always think of the biblical thingy with justice. Two women, one baby, both claim it, the one who says don't cleave it in two gets it. What happens when both women say don't cleave it into two I don't know. Emotion should be left out of justice until the courts have done their bit then the relatives should be allowed to say their piece. If they have anything important to say then the names and addresses of the jurors who can't wait to get on TV in this country should be published.
Justice only works when all are impartial.
Yes , I'm referring to the Jackson case.

justice is actually two fold, to protect society from the guilty, and also to protect the guilty from society in the form of vigilante justice, which is what revenge by victims almost certainly is. (anyone whom witnessed the aftermath of James Bulger + trial) Vigilante justice has no place in society. Justice cannot be metered out with emotional attachments as the twat who stole my new bike when I was 12 deserved to die as that bike meant more to me than my sister at the time.

Justice in my mind is for society to utilise community standards (IE courts) to come to a fair (or just) conclusion for the wrongdoer, those that have been wronged and for society as a whole.

Revenge is quite a different instinct, having more to do with somebody getting their own back on someone else, or using a simple eye-for-eye philosophy.

Closure is moving on. IE "I feel I will have closure when my divorce finally comes through and I can start living my own life again."

does any "legal justice" really deal with the source of the problem?

Is the justice of the courts really emotion-free?

But if justice is based on a sense of human right and wrong, can it ever be impartial?


What is justice if not revenge?

Fair point -the Justice of the courts is not only for the aggrieved -left to their own devices, revenge exacted by individuals may be excessive.

So how does "getting their own back" differ from "justice" with regards to the DP for murder?

So (as somebody said in the DP thread) why do familes in places with the DP need death of the perp for closure when they don't in places without it?

Justice is a thinking man or womans job where the base motive is thought with criteria and analytical judgements. It serves to the best interest of the people and involves little if any emotion due to the theoretical reasoning involved.

Revenge involves very little thought and it's base motive is purely emotional. It is a personal thing between two people or two different groups. Here the perpetrator acts as judge jury executioner all in one and justice isn't served in the best interest of the people.

Closure is emotionally based as well and is drawing inwards and not outwards such as revenge. Individuals don't lash out for closure, unlike revenge. Closure comes when an individual feels peace with a situation that was for whatever reason unacceptable to them.

Justice is what is suppose to separate us from the animals, being it requires thought. I've never known animals to carry out revenge though which tells me it is human nature.

Nice rhetoric, but in practice, isn't it strange how the people are apparently best served by some form of revenge? So much so that people seem to confuse the two terms. When the angry mob yell "we want justice", is that what they really mean? Or will they not consider justice to be done until they have revenge?

If someone murdered your loved one, you might want to take revenge by killing them. But that's illegal. However, some courts can and will do it for you. If someone steals your money, you want it back and you want to take something away from that person. Hard to do that by yourself when the person is on their guard, but the courts will do that for you, taking away that person's liberty. So isn't justice just legalized delayed revenge? Like running home to get your gun or your big brother? Some people use the phrase "teach them a lesson" when talking about getting revenge. Surely that is the point of the punishment of the courts, to teach the offenders that what they did was wrong and not to do it again? So that would actually be justice. Yet there are so many repeat offenders clearly the punishments meted out by the courts often don't work, so then surely it is just revenge?

Is justice and revenge the same thing when you are talking about the different treatment of men versus women or blacks and whites when justice is asked for in say robbery or murder. Or is the justice of seperation and segregation a type of revenge? Would it be considered revenge for a woman who is stoned to death for being raped and become pregnant even though her punishment would be considered justice?

Could these really be classed as revenge?

Sorry, you've lost me....... I don't think you should be allowed to go on to graduate studies lol

Are you saying that justice and revenge are the same in some circumstances and not others?

Justice is any form of punishment, prevention or prosecution that is carried out by the State.

So then revenge is a subcategory of justice?

I don't think so. Justice has boundaries. Revenge does not.

:roll: Your question was 'are Justice and Revenge the same thing?' I was bringing in the argument that if they are the same thing (which was your point in the post before mine) then are you saying that segregation and the belief that one part of society deserves more justice than another is a type of revenge. If so, whose revenge would it be?

Personally I would say they aren't. Justice tries to be fair. However, a society's idea of what is fair can be different from another society.

anyway, shouldn't this idea be the difference between justice and morality? :wink: