Why Is Justice Blind

1177 Words3 Pages

The phrase “justice is blind” means that no matter the level of class, race, gender, or wealth, justice is the same for everyone without any regards. Justice should be impartial, unbiased and fair. It expresses an idea that unnecessary factors should not be what influences the justice system in a country. Everyone is equal before the law. The purpose of this essay is to explore whether or not justice is blind.
Impacts
Under the operational perspective there are two distinct categories of which justice should operate. The first perspective is commonly known as due process. People are notoriously poor observers when trying to remember the facts of disturbing events. The higher the emotion-arousing context, greater is the possibility that recollection …show more content…

The police end up receiving information based on what the suspect thinks the police want to hear because of the coercion, as opposed to hearing truthful facts (Packer, n.d.). Witnesses can be animated by bias or interest that no one would go through the trouble of discovery except for the one individual with the obligation of protecting the interests and the rights of the accused (Packer, n.d.). The due process model is used to reject any attempt there is to provide an enhanced reliability for the process of fact finding and yet still generate a set of processes and intuitions that sharply differs from those that are demanded by the crime control model (Packer, n.d.). The second perspective is crime control model. Under this model, it is based on the suggestion that the control of criminal conduct is by far the most important function and it is to be implemented by the criminal justice process. When law enforcement fails to bring criminal conduct under control, it is often times seen as leading to the breakdown of public order. This also contributes perceived to the disappearance of an important condition of human freedom. If the laws it not …show more content…

These four goals are 1) deterrence, 2) retribution, 3) incapacitation, and 4) rehabilitation. Deterrence can be defined, in broad terms of punishment, and may be expected to affective in one of two ways. First, by intensifying the certainty of punishment, individuals that could potentially commit crime may be deterred by the simple risk of being apprehended. Second, the seriousness of punishments may influence behavior (Wright, 2010). If individuals, who are thinking about committing a crime, weigh the consequences of their actions and conclude that the risks of punishment are too severe, that can be a deterrence. This is part of the logic behind “three strikes,” and “truth in sentencing” policies. This is used to utilize the threat of very severe sentences in order to deter some people from engaging in criminal behavior (Wright, 2010). Retribution is the hub of almost all of the judicial systems that intermingles with law and order. Retributive justice can be distinguished from revenge in the sense that defendants are expected to give up something in return for the offenses they committed this can be to the extent that punishment is supposed to fit the crime. Retribution can be considered a susceptible principle and ranges in doctrines from “an eye for an eye” to “the Golden Rule” (Hirby, n.d.). Incapacitation has been defined as the removing of criminals from society. Typically incapacitation

Open Document