Pursuing Criminal Justice

Pursuing Criminal Justice

“Justice” is a loaded word in any human language, with as many varied meanings as the people who define it. What is justice, and can all humans come to a consensus on its basic meaning? In this paper, I will discuss my understating of justice as it implies to a future career. Through this context, I will explore the three current practices in law enforcement, whether they can demonstrate justice, as well as the practices that I believe would result in injustice. Further, I will look closely into the changes that occurred post the horrific terrorist attacks of 9/11, attempting to categorize them as positive or negative, or were they worthwhile or unnecessary. More importantly, I will consider the efforts taken to overcome the resistance to such changes; and whether such changes could have occurred without such a severe causal event. I will conclude by discussing other challenges to consider as well as pose some suggestions that can improve the outlook, as well as share my personal perspective.

Justice, as many others and I perceive it, has many forms, with each having its own strength and weaknesses. For simplicity, these forms are divided into three categories of justice: social justice, personal justice, and supernatural justice. According to the Almighty Guru website, (2005), social justice is one of the most important forms of justice. It involves the operation of setting up a system of laws recognized universally, as well as having the authority to enforce those laws. Social justice, typically influenced by faith leadership and legislators, includes a government’s official system, whereas personal justice involves the individual’s individual morals; and finally, supernatural justice, as it relates to karma and compassionate gods. However, to me as an individual, justice should be fair, unbiased, and most importantly treats everyone equally. In reality though, this does not happen often and justice remains elusive and a source of constant controversial debates among scholars (Tersigni, 2005).

When examining social justice, one likes to assume that the major benefit to people from this form of justice is that it allows the creation of an ethical code based on societal norms of the masses, essentially dictating to people what is right and wrong. It is easy then to see the drawback of creating such a system that eventually ignores the ethics of minorities, thus treating them as less important or even disfranchising them. For example, most people regard euthanasia as a wrongdoing, and lawmakers pass laws to punish those actively involved in such an act. Although this majority perceives these laws as morally acceptable, still a minority believes euthanasia is an acceptable practice. Consequently, society considers these people wrong, and therefore it exempts them from social justice because of their deviating views (Tersigni, 2005).

Personal