justice theme essay

Essays About Justice: Top 5 Examples and 7 Prompts

Discover our guide with examples of essays about justice and prompts for your essay writing and discuss vital matters relating to a person’s or nation’s welfare. 

Justice, in general, refers to the notion that individuals get what they deserve. It includes fundamental moral values ​​in law and politics and is considered an act of fairness, equality, and honesty. Four types of justice deal with how victims can solicit a verdict. They are procedural, distributive, retributive, and restorative. There are many pieces with justice as the subject. It’s because justice is a broad subject encompassing many human values.

5 Essay Examples

1. juvenile justice system of usa essay by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 2. wrongful convictions in criminal justice system by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 3. racial profiling within the criminal justice system by anonymous on papersowl.com, 4. criminal justice: the ban-the-box law by anonymous on ivypanda.com, 5. the special needs of the criminal justice on mental illness cases by anonymous on gradesfixer.com, 1. what is justice, 2. is justice only for the rich and powerful, 3. the importance of justice, 4. the justice system in mainstream media, 5. justice: then vs. now, 6. justice system around the world, 7. obstructions to justice.

“No doubt, familiarity about the nature of juvenile crimes and how juvenile justice structures function across the world will offer an insight to policy makers, social scientists and for gullible citizens. Thus, a comparative analysis will throw light on how well or how poorly one nation is exercising relative to other nations.”

The essay delves into the justice system process for teenagers who are 18 years and below who commit wrongful acts. Most teenagers involved in juvenile crimes do not have a strong foundation or parental support. The author also talks about the treatments, boot camps, and retreat houses available for teenagers serving in juvenile prisons.

The ever-increasing number of juvenile crimes in the world reflects the mismanagement and lack of juvenile courts, sentencing programs, rehabilitation, and age-appropriate treatment. The writer believes that if mistrials remain in the juvenile system, the problem will continue. They suggest that the government must initiate more system reforms and provide juvenile offenders with proper ethical education.

“The justice system is composed of various legal groups and actors, making a miscarriage possible at any stage of the legal process, or at the hands of any legal actor. Eyewitness error, police misconduct, or falsification of evidence are examples of factors that may lead to a wrongful conviction.”

In this essay, the author uses various citations that show the justice system’s flaws in the process and criteria of its rulings. It further discusses the different instances of unfair judgments and mentions that at least 1% of all convicts serving prison time were wrongfully accused. 

The writer believes that changing the way of addressing different cases and ensuring that all legal professionals do their assigned duties will result in fair justice. You might also be interested in these essays about choice .

“Here in the 21st century, we don’t exactly have ‘Black Codes’ we have what is known as Racial Profiling. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) defines racial profiling as ‘the discriminatory practice by law enforcement officials of targeting individuals for suspicion of crime based on the individual’s race ethnicity, religion or national origin.’”

This essay investigates the involvement of race in the criminal justice system, whether they are victims or perpetrators. The author claims that some law enforcement officers mistreat and misjudge people because of their race and presents various cases as evidence of these discriminatory actions. One example is the case of an unarmed black teenager, Jordan Edwards , who was shot because former officer Roy Oliver thought his partner was in danger.

Unfortunately, law enforcement officials use their power and position in society to deny any act of racial profiling, rendering the said law useless. The author declares that while their paper may not prove racial bias in the criminal justice system, they can prove that a person’s color plays a role and can cause harm.

“I think the Ban-the-Box law is the best way of creating employment opportunities for ex-convicts without discrimination. Criminal offenses vary in the degree of the crime, making it unfair to treat all ex-convicts the same. Moreover, some felons learn from their mistakes during detention and parole, creating a better and law-abiding citizen with the ability to work faithfully.”

The essay explains how ex-convicts or current convicts are consistently discriminated against. This discrimination affects their lives even after serving their sentence, especially in their rights to vote and work. 

Regarding job hunting, the author believes the Ban-the-Box law will effectively create more employment opportunities. The law allows employers to see an ex-convict’s skills rather than just their record.  The essay concludes with a reminder that everyone is entitled to a civil right to vote, while private enterprises are free to run background checks. 

“Case management focuses on incorporating key elements that focus on improving the wellbeing of individuals that are being assessed. Mental illness within the criminal justice system is treated as a sensitive issue that requires urgent intervention in order to ensure that an inmate is able to recover.”

This essay pries into one of the most delicate areas of ruling in the justice system, which is leading mentally ill convicts. Offenders who were deemed mentally ill should be able to receive particular treatments for their health while serving time. 

The author mentions that every country must be able to provide mental health services for the inmates to prevent conflicts inside the prison. In conclusion, they suggest that reviewing and prioritizing policies related to mental illness is the best solution to the issue.

Are you interested in writing about mental illnesses? Check out our guide on how to write essays about depression.

7 Prompts for Essays About Justice

Justice is a vast subject, and its literal meaning is the quality of being just. This process often occurs when someone who has broken the law gets what they should, whether freedom or punishment. Research and discuss everything there is to know about justice so your readers can fully understand it. Include a brief history of its origins, types, and uses.

Several situations prove that justice is only for the rich. One of the main reasons is the expensive court fees. Research why victims settle outside the court or just let their abusers get away with crimes.

Include data that proves justice is a luxury where the only ones who can ask for equal treatment are those with resources—present situations or well-known cases to support your statements. On the other hand, you can also provide counter-arguments such as government programs that help financially-challenged individuals.

Every citizen has the right to be protected and treated fairly in court. Explain the importance of justice to a person, society, and government. Then, add actual cases of how justice is applied to encourage reform or chaos. Include relevant cases that demonstrate how justice impacts lives and legal changes, such as the case of Emmett Till .

Talk about how justice is usually depicted on screen and how it affects people’s expectations of how the justice system works. Popular television shows such as Suits and Law and Order are examples of the justice system being portrayed in the media. Research these examples and share your opinion on whether movies or television portray the justice system accurately or not.

In this essay, research how justice worldwide has changed. This can include looking at legal systems, human rights, and humanity’s ever-changing opinions. For instance, child labor was considered normal before but is viewed as an injustice today. List significant changes in justice and briefly explain why they have changed over time. You might also be interested in these essays about violence .

Countries have different ways of instilling justice within their societies. For this prompt, research and discuss the countries you think have the best and worst legal systems. Then, point out how these differences affect the country’s crime rates and quality of life for its citizens.

Examine why people tend to take justice into their hands, disobey legal rules, or give up altogether. It can be because seeking justice is an arduous process resulting in emotional and financial burdens. Often, this occurs when a person feels their government is not providing the support they need. Take a look at this social issue, and discuss it in your essay for a strong argumentative. 

If you are interested in learning more, check out our essay writing tips !

Maria Caballero is a freelance writer who has been writing since high school. She believes that to be a writer doesn't only refer to excellent syntax and semantics but also knowing how to weave words together to communicate to any reader effectively.

View all posts

150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples

⭐ top 10 social justice issues to write about, 🏆 best social justice topic ideas & essay examples, ⭐ simple & easy social justice essay titles, 📌 most interesting social justice topics to write about, 👍 good social justice research topics, ❓ research questions about social justice.

Social justice essays are an excellent tool for demonstrating your awareness of the current issues in society.

Inequality in society should be addressed, and social justice advocates are at the forefront of such initiatives. Everyone should be able to achieve their goals and dreams if they put in the effort, assuming of course that reaching that target is at all possible.

To that end, you should ask various social justice essay questions and investigate different situations, particularly those that surround marginalized communities.

While the civil rights movement has succeeded in eliminating discriminatory policies and gender segregation, people should remain vigilant so that inequality again.

There are many topics you can discuss in your essay, but is better to focus on something specific and conduct a detailed investigation. It is easy to take some examples of data that shows a situation that seems unequal and declare that the system is flawed.

However, the data may be inaccurate, and the causes may be different from what you initially perceive them to be. Many fields will be too small for statistic laws to apply, and so there will be a temporary prevalence of people with a specific trait.

Declarations of premature conclusions and calls to action based on these conjectures are not productive and will generally lead to harm.

Be sure to consider evidence from both sides when discussing the topic of injustice, especially in its sensitive applications.

The case of police officers and the racial disparity in arrests is a prominent example, as there is significant disagreement, and neither side can be considered entirely correct.

At other times, unequal treatments may be explained by racial and gender differences without the application of discriminatory practices, particularly with regards to cultural practices.

The importance of justice is above debate, but it is not always about declaring one side correct while the other is wrong and at fault. Humanity operates best when it is unified and follows the same purpose of fairness.

Lastly, try to avoid confusing equality with equity, as the two social justice essay topics are significantly different. The former involves similar starting conditions and opportunities for all people, though they will likely achieve varying successes in life.

The latter means equality of outcomes, meaning that the unsuccessful receive support, which logically has to come at the expense of those who succeed.

You may support either position, with equality being a more traditional concept that seems logical to many people and equity being considered effective at improving the conditions of marginalized communities. However, make your position clear, as the difference is critical and informs your personal concept of social justice.

Here are some additional tips for your paper:

• Separate the points you make in your essay with social justice essay titles. These titles will help the reader navigate the paper and understand your main claims.
• Try to introduce original ideas instead of contributing to ongoing debates. An essay does not allow enough space to let you add something that will change the situation to such discussions.
• The topic of social justice is inherently political, as most suggestions will involve policy-level changes. However, you should try to distance yourself from politics and work with factual information.

Visit IvyPanda to find more social justice essay examples and other useful paper samples to boost your creative process!

• Unemployment.
• Global Warming.
• School Shooting.
• Income Inequality.
• Global Pandemic.
• Social Security.
• Racial & LGBTQ Discrimination.
• Mental Health Stigma.
• Famine and Starvation.
• Discrimination in Voting.
• Social Justice in Education With a clear distinction between justice taught in class and justice allowed to thrive in the school environments, teachers can be able to observe how their students perceive and response to social injustices in the […]
• Advocating for Social Justice in Healthcare However, health care is also often related to the idea of social justice a term that describes the allocation of resources and benefits to people according to their needs and abilities.
• Jay-Z’s Contribution to Hip-Hop and Fight for Social Justice One should admit that the crime rate among black people in some poor areas is really quite high, and that is another problem Jay-Z covers in his music.
• David Miller’s Theory of Desert in Social Justice The dependence of rewards on the variety of external and conditional factors makes the public and scholars question the idea of the desert and its use for justice.
• Social Justice and Mental Health However, it is difficult to imagine the U.S.taking nationwide action on mental health due to the absence of healthcare for physical health, which is widely accepted as a serious issue.
• Social Justice and the Australian Indigenous People The main idea behind the formation of the social justice commission was to give the indigenous Australian people choice by empowering them to stand up for their rights.
• Freedom and Social Justice Through Technology These two remarkable minds have made significant contributions to the debates on technology and how it relates to liberty and social justice.
• Factors of Strategic Management of Social Justice Starting to talk about economic and technological changes that affect the sector of social justice, it is possible to observe tendencies of the level of development of the country from social policy.
• Social Justice from a Philosophical Perspective Although their theories of justice were significant, they would not have existed without Plato’s influence and the contribution that their ideas of justice have made to political philosophy.
• Social Justice in the Modern World The main link in social relations is a measure of social justice, a derivative of the equality of people’s opportunities to realize their potential.
• Social Justice Quotes from “The Wife’s Lament” by Beck “never worse than now ever I suffer the torment of my exile”.”that man’s kinsmen began to think in secret that they would separate us” “so we would live far apart in the world” “My lord […]
• Social Justice in Counseling Psychology The other barrier which is likely to arise in the process of integrating social justice in the workplace is legal and ethical issues.
• Social Justice and Vulnerability Theories When the country’s economic analyzers assess the status of the economy, the older people are regarded as the first group of the population that is pulling the economy backward because they are entirely dependent.
• Social Justice in Social Work Practice The moral approach of social work is fundamentally based on the idea of social justice. Despite the numerous risks associated with advocating for social justice, criticizing injustice is one of the few courageous ways to […]
• Journal Editors’ Role Regarding Social Justice Issues Journal editors can involve professionals from social justice forums such as civil rights lawyers in their journals as well as reduce the complexity of the presentation of social justice article contents.
• Researching the Concept of Social Justice A special kind of justice is social justice, the subjects of which are large social groups, society as a whole, and humanity.
• The Role of Quilting in the African American Striving for Social Justice Perhaps quilting has become not only one of the symbols of African American national culture but also a way in which many black women have become visible and significant.
• Promoting Social Justice Through Serving God Therefore, serving God in action correlates with the promotion of social justice and reflects the importance of Christian teachings about kindness towards others.
• Social Justice and Importing Foreign Nurses Evaluation Given the lag between the submission of the article and its publication, it means that these sources most likely reflect the situation with the recruitment of foreign-educated nurses by the end of the 2000s.
• Promoting Social Justice With Head Start Program This essay will discuss the role of the Head Start program in the promotion of social justice in the US, focusing on the values taught to the children and the activities that constitute the program.
• Religion, Politics, and Social Justice Organized religions want to change and implement rebranding to fit the new trend, concentrating on social justice in general rather than the individual spiritual aspirations of a person or a family.
• Social Justice and Its Relevance in This Century To put the issue in perspective, he references the civil rights movement of the 1960s and juxtaposes it against the fact that the US had a black president.
• Social Justice Arts as a Remedy for People The work led to the formation of the movement called Black Lives Matter which calls for an end to oppressing black people through law enforcement.
• Social Justice, Diversity and Workplace Discrimination It also includes the fair distribution of the national wealth and resources among all citizens and the unbiased treatment of all individuals.
• Social Justice: Why Do Violations Happen? If there is social inequality in a society, it must be corrected to serve the interests of the most oppressed groups of the population.
• Social Justice From the Biblical Point of View Furthermore, all oppressed and poor people are considered to be “righteous” in the Bible because it “is a reflection of God’s faithful love in action and his desire for justice and righteousness in this world”.
• Definition of Social Justice and Social Justice in Leadership They should evaluate the situation, identify areas that need improvement and develop a plan to support the achievement of social justice.
• Community Engagement and Social Justice Promotion Furthermore, as social justice is integrated into the curriculum, I would like to participate in practice-oriented assignments and class discussions to make a meaningful change.
• Social Justice Leadership and Supervision While the concepts of leadership and supervision tend to be referenced within the clinical contend and primarily apply to the responsibilities of the professionals in mental institutions, the issues articulated in the article and chapters […]
• Uganda’s Economic Planning and Social Justice On the eastern, it borders Kenya, North is Southern Sudan, to the west is DRC and to the southwest is Rwanda, while to the South is Tanzania.
• Rise of Mental Social Justice It relates to the social justice leadership in clinical and supervisory practice in mental health settings by challenging the modern tenets of managerialism and neoliberalism.
• Social Justice in the US Healthcare System Social justice is a relatively broad concept, the interpretation of which often depends on the political and economic views of an individual.
• Conceptualizing Supervision in Search of Social Justice Based on these findings, it could be concluded that Social justice leadership is meant to become the remedy and the ideological, political, and medical opponent of the dominant positivist biomedical paradigm.
• Researching HIV, AIDS and Social Justice Disney claims that poverty and social injustice lead to the spread of HIV/AIDS among underprivileged people in all countries. The disease was a kind of stigma and infected people were subjected to discrimination and alienation.
• Equal Pay Convention Ratified by New Zealand and Ensuring Social Justice This paper seeks to identify whether the ratification of the International Labour Organisation equal pay for an equal value of work Convention by New Zealand delivered social justice to the women in the New Zealand […]
• Influence of Socioeconomic Status and Social Justice on Health in the US In the video, Richard David and James Collins have determined that racism, inappropriate social policies, and chronic stress are major social factors that lead to the delivery of low-weight babies among African American women.
• Social Justice Perspective Thus public health deals not only with the guarantee of a long healthy life but also regulate and control the death rate, try to expand the life interval, and other things that the policy of […]
• Deaf Youth: Social Justice Through Media and Activism The Deaf Youth USA for instance strives to educate, inspire, and empower the deaf youth to make difference in the communities.
• Re-Examining Criminal and Social Justice Systems: Reducing Incarceration Rates in the US The changes in criminal justice policy over the past decades and the alteration of the same from one of rehabilitative and social justice to one of retributive justice and increasing reliance on imprisonment as a […]
• Social Justice and Ethics: Beneficiaries of U.S. Welfare Programs In United States the beneficiaries include the poor, the old, the disabled, survivors, farmers, corporations and any other individual who may be eligible.
• Social Justice and Feminism in America So as to make a change in this situation, the feminists in America took efforts to improve the condition of women.
• Equality of Opportunity and Social Justice: Affirmative Action If this is the situation in advanced nations of the world, the plight in the newly emerging states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America can easily be imagined as to how difficult would it be […]
• Christianity Religion and Asian World: Social Justice It was also said that the greatest botched opportunity in all church history was in the 1260s the court of the great Kublai Khan asked the Polos when they returned to Italy in 1269 to […]
• Social Justice for Indigenous Women in Canada However, the problem of social justice or, to be more accurate, the lack thereof becomes especially poignant when considering criminal issues and their management, as well as the factors that contribute to reducing the rates […]
• Social Justice and Educational Reform in the US People are free to develop their individual attitudes to the importance of social justice in education and leadership. Social justice may be used in the creation of job announcements, proposals, and statements to attract attention […]
• Social Justice in Quality Health Care The provision of accessible health services is necessary to minimize the health risks of the low-income households and improve their quality of life.
• What Is Social Justice? To my mind, the two most important principles of justice that should be used to govern within a just society are the selection of highly virtuous state leaders and government representatives to put in charge […]
• Social Justice: Philosophy of Employment The philosophy of empowerment supports dignity and self-worth; as such, value to all people, regardless of their status or race is an important rule of empowerment.
• American Women’s Movements for Social Justice Like Alice Walker, Deborah Gray, and Collins, Tyra Banks continues the legacy of black women since she is ready to campaign against racism, sexism, and discrimination.
• Social Justice Group Work for Homeless Young Mothers The group discussed in the article was started for the purpose of assisting residents address the problem of homelessness especially in aspects of parenting and during pregnancy periods.
• Readings for Diversity and Social Justice: An Anthology In that way, the authors noted that racial and ethnic differences tend to produce impact on lives of communities in the entirety of their aspects, and thus can aggravate other social justice issues.
• Health Care Services: Social Justice Analysis For instance, the level of poverty in the USA is on the rise, and many people simply have no funds to purchase their health insurance. In conclusion, it is possible to note that social justice […]
• Social Justice Issues: Elderly Minority Groups Students should know the peculiarities of the populations in question and should be aware of practices and services available to those patients.
• Black Lives Matter and Social Justice Social media is a new public platform that has proved to be extremely effective in fighting against the normalization of violence against African-Americans.
• Ethics and Social Justice in Education Policies The real-life problem that contributes to those controversies is the multicultural genuineness of the community that was exposed to the federal and state standard reforms that transpired throughout the last ten years.
• Administrative Constitutionalism and Social Justice The current point of view at the crimes and violence is predestined by the commercial pressure applied to the mass media sources. In the majority of the cases, popular media becomes the viral source of […]
• Counselors as Social Justice Advocates The compelling vision of social justice is to achieve “free, full, and equal participation” of all groups in society to realize their aspirations and mutual needs.
• U.S. Postal Service’s Ethics and Social Justice In spite of the fact that the current agency was organized in 1971, the background of the organization is related to the development of the first postal service in the country based on the U.S.
• Ethics Issues: Social Justice In other words, it is observed that an individual has a duty of ensuring that the law is followed while the government is expected to provide the basic rights and freedoms.
• Education and Social Justice The society should also reduce the gap between the poor and the rich. The current level of inequality explains why “every school should reinvent itself in order to deal with social injustice”.
• Social justice and the black – white achievement gap From a national perspective, the achievement gap between the Black and White is reported to have narrowed down in 2007 as compared to the same gap in 1990.
• Setting an Agenda for Social Justice According to Wilkinson, Brundrett is a professor of Educational Research in the Faculty of Education, Community, and Leisure and the head of the Centre for Research and Evaluation, in the Liverpool John Moores University.
• Prosperity and Social Justice The short story was also the subject of debate when it was first written because it failed to fit in any particular genre at the time.”The Yellow Wallpaper” was mostly considered a horror story when […]
• Social Justice: Wray’s Essential Aspects of Biblical Law and Justice Wray has conducted an extensive study on the subject of social justice and suggests that students taking any course on law or social justice must go back to the origins of these laws and justice, […]
• Social Justice: The Catholic’s Social Teachings on Justice The church also seeks to instill value in the prisoners’ lives through teachings and practices that accept prisoners as people who deserve to be treated with dignity.
• Social and Criminal Justice Responses to Sex Work The negative attitude of the community and the criminalization of sex works made workers of his industry vulnerable and susceptible for the physical assaults of men in the street, their customers and even policemen.
• Is Social Justice the Same Thing as Political Egalitarianism? An Analysis from a Theory of Justice Perspective This is the question that is likely to arise when one is analyzing social justice in the context of political developments in the society.
• Social Justice and Gay Rights This perception of gays was radically reformed thanks to the efforts of gay rights movements which trace their roots to the 1960s and the Stonewall Riots of 1969 which marked the birth of the gay […]
• The People Demand Social Justice: The Social Protest in Israel as an Agoral Gathering
• The Woman Who Spoke of Love and Social Justice
• Peace and Eco-Social Justice: Failed Distributive Justice, Violence and Militancy in India
• Spirituality, Women ‘s Issues, Sustainability, and Social Justice
• Multicultural Counseling Social Justice and Advocacy Reaction
• The Paradox of Dominate Ideologies in The Fight of Social Justice
• Letter from Birmingham Jail’ by Martin Luther King Jr. and Social Justice
• Richard Spencer and the Issues of Social Justice and White Nationalism
• The Moving Beyond Pity and Inspiration: Disability as a social Justice Issue by Eli Clare
• The Importance of Human Rights and Social Justice
• Social Justice: The Role of Higher Education, Criminality and Race
• Turning Points in the Lives of Chinese and Indian Women Leaders Working Toward Social Justice
• Paulo Freire’s Social Justice Idea
• Producing and Practicing Social Justice in Education
• Urban Social Justice: The Gentrification Debate
• The Role of Education in Society as Explained in Conell’s Social Justice in Education
• The Issues of the Canadian Social Services and Social Justice Domain
• Wellbeing, Freedom, and Social Justice: The Capability Approach
• The Principle of Social Justice and Advocacy Support
• The Biblical Prophets’ Teachings on the Love of God in Social Justice
• The Relationship Between Free Market and Social Justice
• Uneasy Bedfellows: Social Justice and Neo-Liberal Practice in the Housing Market
• The Ethics of Pricing and Access to Health Care: A Social Justice Issue
• Measuring Attitudes Toward Distributive Justice: The Basic Social Justice Orientations Scale
• The Importance of the Covenant House as a Symbol of Christian Social Justice
• Social Justice Orientation and Multicultural Environment
• The New Political Economy of J. S. Mill: The Means to Social Justice
• The ‘s Coat of Arms Are Trust, Empathy, and Social Justice
• The Vietnam War and Its Impact on The Creation of Social Justice
• Race Relations and Social Justice Problems
• Poverty, Inequality and Social Justice in Nonmetropolitan America
• Rape Culture, Rapth, and the Cycles of Social Justice
• The Three Social Justice Issues That Fires Me Up as a Citizen in the United States
• Reading Baldwin After Harvey: Why Climate Change Is a Social Justice Issue
• The Importance of Social Justice Is Universal Across
• Effective Practice During The Social Justice System
• The Issue of Social Justice Activism in Various Social Media Networks
• Sustainable Development and Social Justice: Expanding the Rawlsian Framework of Global Justice
• Once Upon Today: Teaching for Social Justice with Postmodern Picturebook
• The Congressional Black Caucus Use of Social Media for Social Justice Issues
• The Effective Teaching Techniques of Lisa Espinosa in Providing Information on the Topic of Cultural Relevance and Social Justice
• Reading Baldwin After Harvey: Why Climate Change Is a Social Justice Issue?
• How Does Social Justice Highlight the Relationship Between Social Welfare and Crime Control?
• Social Justice and Academic Success: Is Individual Effort Enough?
• Rawls’s Theory of Social Justice: How Decisions Are Made?
• Are Consultation and Social Justice Advocacy Similar Exploring the Perceptions?
• How Arc Advances Social Justice?
• What Are the Different Factors Affect Social Justice?
• What Does the Information Society Mean for Social Justice and Civil Society?
• What Is the Connection Between Curricular Practices, Social Justice and Democratic Purpose in the United States Education System?
• How the United States Has Both Market and Social Justice?
• What Is the Impact of Social Justice on The United States?
• What Is the Impact of Social Justice on Human Development?
• How Does Social Justice Actions Project?
• When High Pressure, System Constraints, and a Social Justice Mission Collide?
• What Is the Concept of Social Justice Social Work?
• What Is the Connection Between Free Market and Social Justice?
• What Is the Goal of Social Justice Education?
• What Social Justice Issues Are You Most Passionate About?
• What Is Consist Social Justice Western Perspectives?
• How Social Justice Course Changed My Outlook?
• What Are the Three Social Justice Issues That Fires Up as a Citizen in the United States?
• What Has Limited the Impact of UK Disability Equality Law on Social Justice?
• What Is Rawls’ Expanding Framework for Global Justice?
• How Does the Film “Lord of Flies” Relate to Social Justice?
• Does the Legal System Promote Social Justice?
• Are the People Demand Social Justice?
• Social Justice and the University Community: Does Campus?
• What Does “Social Justice” Mean?
• What Does Teaching for Social Justice Mean for Teachers?
• Why Is Education a Social Justice and Right for Each Child?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, February 29). 150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/

"150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." IvyPanda , 29 Feb. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples'. 29 February.

IvyPanda . 2024. "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "150 Social Justice Essay Topics & Examples." February 29, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/social-justice-essay-examples/.

• Social Democracy Essay Titles
• Equality Topics
• Social Development Essay Topics
• Tolerance Essay Ideas
• Social Responsibility Topics
• Gender Equality Questions
• Social Security Paper Topics
• Children’s Rights Research Ideas
• Women’s Rights Titles
• Socioeconomic Status Paper Topics
• Human Rights Essay Ideas
• Sociological Perspectives Titles
• Idealism Paper Topics
• Respect Essay Topics
• Libertarianism Research Topics

• Table of Contents
• Random Entry
• Chronological
• Editorial Information
• About the SEP
• Editorial Board
• How to Cite the SEP
• Special Characters
• Advanced Tools
• Support the SEP
• PDFs for SEP Friends
• Make a Donation
• SEPIA for Libraries
• Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

• Friends PDF Preview
• Author and Citation Info
• Back to Top

The idea of justice occupies centre stage both in ethics, and in legal and political philosophy. We apply it to individual actions, to laws, and to public policies, and we think in each case that if they are unjust this is a strong, maybe even conclusive, reason to reject them. Classically, justice was counted as one of the four cardinal virtues (and sometimes as the most important of the four); in modern times John Rawls famously described it as ‘the first virtue of social institutions’ (Rawls 1971, p.3; Rawls, 1999, p.3). We might debate which of these realms of practical philosophy has first claim on justice: is it first and foremost a property of the law, for example, and only derivatively a property of individuals and other institutions? But it is probably more enlightening to accept that the idea has over time sunk deep roots in each of these domains, and to try to make sense of such a wide-ranging concept by identifying elements that are present whenever justice is invoked, but also examining the different forms it takes in various practical contexts. This article aims to provide a general map of the ways in which justice has been understood by philosophers, past and present.

We begin by identifying four core features that distinguish justice from other moral and political ideas. We then examine some major conceptual contrasts: between conservative and ideal justice, between corrective and distributive justice, between procedural and substantive justice, and between comparative and non-comparative justice. Next we turn to questions of scope: to who or what do principles of justice apply? We ask whether non-human animals can be subjects of justice, whether justice applies only between people who already stand in a particular kind of relationship to one another, and whether individual people continue to have duties of justice once justice-based institutions have been created. We then examine three overarching theories that might serve to unify the different forms of justice: utilitarianism, contractarianism, and egalitarianism. But it seems, in conclusion, that no such theory is likely be successful.

More detailed discussions of particular forms of justice can be found in other entries: see especially distributive justice , global justice , intergenerational justice , international distributive justice , justice and bad luck , justice as a virtue , and retributive justice .

1.1 Justice and Individual Claims

1.2 justice, charity and enforceable obligation, 1.3 justice and impartiality, 1.4 justice and agency, 2.1 conservative versus ideal justice, 2.2 corrective versus distributive justice, 2.3 procedural versus substantive justice, 2.4 comparative versus non-comparative justice, 3.1 human vs non-human animals, 3.2 relational vs non-relational justice, 3.3 individuals vs institutions, 3.4 recognition vs. redistribution, 4.1 accommodating intuitions about justice, 4.2 utilitarian theories of justice: three problems, 5.1 gauthier, 5.3 scanlon, 6.1 justice as equality, 6.2 responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism, 6.3 relational egalitarianism, 7. conclusion, other internet resources, related entries, 1. justice: mapping the concept.

‘Justice’ has sometimes been used in a way that makes it virtually indistinguishable from rightness in general. Aristotle, for example, distinguished between ‘universal’ justice that corresponded to ‘virtue as a whole’ and ‘particular’ justice which had a narrower scope (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, chs. 1–2). The wide sense may have been more evident in classical Greek than in modern English. But Aristotle also noted that when justice was identified with ‘complete virtue’, this was always ‘in relation to another person’. In other words, if justice is to be identified with morality as such, it must be morality in the sense of ‘what we owe to each other’ (see Scanlon 1998). But it is anyway questionable whether justice should be understood so widely. At the level of individual ethics, justice is often contrasted with charity on the one hand, and mercy on the other, and these too are other-regarding virtues. At the level of public policy, reasons of justice are distinct from, and often compete with, reasons of other kinds, for example economic efficiency or environmental value.

As this article will endeavour to show, justice takes on different meanings in different practical contexts, and to understand it fully we have to grapple with this diversity. But it is nevertheless worth asking whether we find a core concept that runs through all these various uses, or whether it is better regarded as a family resemblance idea according to which different combinations of features are expected to appear on each occasion of use. The most plausible candidate for a core definition comes from the Institutes of Justinian , a codification of Roman Law from the sixth century AD, where justice is defined as ‘the constant and perpetual will to render to each his due’. This is of course quite abstract until further specified, but it does throw light upon four important aspects of justice.

First, it shows that justice has to do with how individual people are treated (‘to each his due’). Issues of justice arise in circumstances in which people can advance claims – to freedom, opportunities, resources, and so forth – that are potentially conflicting, and we appeal to justice to resolve such conflicts by determining what each person is properly entitled to have. In contrast, where people’s interests converge, and the decision to be taken is about the best way to pursue some common purpose – think of a government official having to decide how much food to stockpile as insurance against some future emergency – justice gives way to other values. In other cases, there may be no reason to appeal to justice because resources are so plentiful that we do not need to worry about allotting shares to individuals. Hume pointed out that in a hypothetical state of abundance where ‘every individual finds himself fully provided with whatever his most voracious appetites can want’, ‘the cautious, jealous virtue of justice would never once have been dreamed of’ (Hume, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals , pp. 183–4). Hume also believed – and philosophical controversy on this point persists until today – that justice has no place in close personal relationships, such as the family, where (it is alleged) each identifies with the others’ interests so strongly that there is no need and no reason for anyone to make claims of personal entitlement. (See Sandel 1982 for a defence of this view; for a critique, see Okin 1989. See also the entry on feminist perspectives on reproduction and the family) .

That justice is a matter of how each separate person is treated appears to create problems for theories such as utilitarianism that judge actions and policies on the basis of their overall consequences aggregated across people – assuming that these theories wish to incorporate rather than discard the idea of justice. In Section 4 below we examine how utilitarians have attempted to respond to this challenge.

Although justice is centrally a matter of how individuals are treated, it is also possible to speak of justice for groups – for example when the state is allocating resources between different categories of citizens. Here each group is being treated as though it were a separate individual for purposes of the allocation.

Second, Justinian’s definition underlines that just treatment is something due to each person, in other words that justice is a matter of claims that can be rightfully made against the agent dispensing justice, whether a person or an institution. Here there is a contrast with other virtues: we demand justice, but we beg for charity or forgiveness. This also means that justice is a matter of obligation for the agent dispensing it, and that the agent wrongs the recipient if the latter is denied what is due to her. It is a characteristic mark of justice that the obligations it creates should be enforceable: we can be made to deliver what is due to others as a matter of justice, either by the recipients themselves or by third parties. However it overstates the position to make the enforceability of its requirements a defining feature of justice (see Buchanan 1987). On the one hand, there are some claims of justice that seem not to be enforceable (by anyone). When we dispense gifts to our children or our friends, we ought to treat each recipient fairly, but neither the beneficiaries themselves nor anyone else can rightfully force the giver to do so. On the other hand, in cases of extreme emergency, it may sometimes be justifiable to force people to do more than justice requires them to do – there may exist enforceable duties of humanity. But these are rare exceptions. The obligatory nature of justice generally goes hand-in-hand with enforceability.

The third aspect of justice to which Justinian’s definition draws our attention is the connection between justice and the impartial and consistent application of rules – that is what the ‘constant and perpetual will’ part of the definition conveys. Justice is the opposite of arbitrariness. It requires that where two cases are relevantly alike, they should be treated in the same way (We discuss below the special case of justice and lotteries). Following a rule that specifies what is due to a person who has features X , Y , Z whenever such a person is encountered ensures this. And although the rule need not be unchangeable – perpetual in the literal sense – it must be relatively stable. This explains why justice is exemplified in the rule of law, where laws are understood as general rules impartially applied over time. Outside of the law itself, individuals and institutions that want to behave justly must mimic the law in certain ways (for instance, gathering reliable information about individual claimants, allowing for appeals against decisions).

Finally, the definition reminds us that justice requires an agent whose will alters the circumstances of its objects. The agent might be an individual person, or it might be a group of people, or an institution such as the state. So we cannot, except metaphorically, describe as unjust states of affairs that no agent has contributed to bringing about – unless we think that there is a Divine Being who has ordered the universe in such a way that every outcome is a manifestation of His will. Admittedly we are tempted to make judgements of what is sometimes called ‘cosmic injustice’ – say when a talented person’s life is cut cruelly short by cancer, or our favourite football team is eliminated from the competition by a freak goal – but this is a temptation we should resist.

This agency condition, however, is less restrictive than it might at first appear. It by no means excludes the possibility that agents can create injustice by omission – for example by failing to create the institutions or to enact the policies that would deliver vital resources to those who need them. Thus it is now common to speak of ‘systemic injustice’ in the case of bad outcomes that no-one intends to occur but that could be prevented by a shift in social norms or institutional practices. The agents in these cases are all those who by acting together to change these things could invert the injustice, but have so far failed to do so.

2. Justice: Four Distinctions

We have so far looked at four elements that are present in every use of the concept of justice. Now it is time to consider some equally important contrasts.

Philosophers writing on justice have observed that it has two different faces, one conservative of existing norms and practices, the other demanding reform of these norms and practices (see Sidgwick 1874/1907, Raphael 2001). Thus on the one hand it is a matter of justice to respect people’s rights under existing law or moral rules, or more generally to fulfil the legitimate expectations they have acquired as a result of past practice, social conventions, and so forth; on the other hand, justice often gives us reason to change laws, practices and conventions quite radically, thereby creating new entitlements and expectations. This exposes an ambiguity in what it means to ‘render each his due’. What is ‘due’ might be what a person can reasonably expect to have given existing law, policy, or social practice, or it might be what the person should get under a regime of ideal justice: this could mean what the person deserves, or needs, or is entitled to on grounds of equality, depending on which ideal principle is being invoked.

Conceptions of justice vary according to the weight they attach to each of these faces. At one extreme, some conceptions interpret justice as wholly concerned with what individuals can claim under existing laws and social conventions: thus for Hume, justice was to be understood as adherence to a set of rules that assign physical objects to individuals (such as being the first possessor of such an object) (Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature , Book III, Part II). These rules can be explained by reference to the natural associations that form in people’s minds between persons and external objects, and although the system of justice as a whole can be shown to be socially useful, there are no relevant independent standards by which its principles can be assessed (Hume briskly dismissed equality and merit as principles for allocating property to persons). In similar vein, Hayek argued that justice was a property of individual behaviour, understood as compliance with the ‘rules of just conduct’ that had evolved to enable a market economy to function effectively. For Hayek, to speak of ‘social justice’ as an ideal standard of distribution was as meaningless as to speak of a ‘moral stone’ (Hayek 1976, p. 78)

At the other extreme stand conceptions of justice which posit some ideal principle of distribution such as equality, together with a ‘currency’ specifying the respect in which justice requires people to be made equally well off, and then refuse to acknowledge the justice of any claims that do not arise directly from the application of this principle. Thus claims deriving from existing law or practice are dismissed unless they happen to coincide with what the principle requires. More often, however, ideal justice is seen as proposing principles by which existing institutions and practices can be assessed, with a view to reforming them, or in the extreme case abolishing them entirely, while the claims that people already have under those practices are given some weight. Rawls, for example, whose two principles of justice count as ideal principles for this purpose, is at pains to stress that they are not intended to be applied in a way that disregards people’s existing legitimate expectations. About the ‘difference principle’, which requires social and economic inequalities to be regulated so that they work to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society, he says:

It applies to the announced system of public law and statutes and not to particular transactions or distributions, nor to the decisions of individuals and associations, but rather to the institutional background against which these transactions and decisions take place. There are no unannounced and unpredictable interferences with citizens’ expectations and acquisitions. Entitlements are earned and honored as the public system of rules declares. (Rawls 1993, p. 283)

Here we see Rawls attempting to reconcile the demands of conservative and ideal justice. Yet he does not directly address the question of what should happen when changing circumstances mean that the difference principle requires new laws or policies to be enacted: do those whose prior entitlements or expectations are no longer met have a claim to be compensated for their loss? We could call this the question of transitional justice (though this phrase is often used now in a more specific sense to refer to the process of reconciliation that may occur following civil war or other armed conflicts: see the entry on transitional justice ).

A second important contrast, whose pedigree reaches back at least as far as Aristotle, is between justice as a principle for assigning distributable goods of various kinds to individual people, and justice as a remedial principle that applies when one person wrongly interferes with another’s legitimate holdings. Thus suppose Bill steals Alice’s computer, or sells Alice faulty goods which he claims to be in perfect order: then Alice suffers a loss, which justice demands that Bill should remedy by returning the computer or fulfilling his contract honestly. Corrective justice, then, essentially concerns a bilateral relationship between a wrongdoer and his victim, and demands that the fault be cancelled by restoring the victim to the position she would have been in had the wrongful behaviour not occurred; it may also require that the wrongdoer not benefit from his faulty behaviour. Distributive justice, on the other hand, is multilateral: it assumes a distributing agent, and a number of persons who have claims on what is being distributed. Justice here requires that the resources available to the distributor be shared according to some relevant criterion, such as equality, desert, or need. In Aristotle’s example, if there are fewer flutes available than people who want to play them, they should be given to the best performers (Aristotle, The Politics , p. 128). In modern debates, principles of distributive justice are applied to social institutions such as property and tax systems, which are understood as producing distributive outcomes across large societies, or even the world as a whole.

The conceptual distinction between distributive and corrective justice seems clear, but their normative relationship is more difficult to pin down (see Perry 2000, Ripstein 2004, Coleman 1992, chs. 16–17). Some have claimed that corrective justice is merely instrumental to distributive justice: its aim is to move from a situation of distributive injustice brought about by the faulty behaviour to one that is more nearly (if not perfectly) distributively just. But this view runs into a number of objections. One is that so long as Alice has a legitimate title to her computer, her claim of corrective justice against Bill does not depend on her having had, prior to the theft, the share of resources that distributive justice ideally demands. She might be richer than she deserves to be, yet corrective justice still require that the computer be returned to her. In other words, corrective justice may serve to promote conservative rather than ideal justice, to use the distinction introduced in 2.1. Another objection is that corrective justice requires the wrongdoer himself to restore or compensate the person he has wronged, even if the cause of distributive justice could be better served by transferring resources from a third party – giving Alice one of even-more-undeservedly-rich Charles’s computers, for example. This underlines the bilateral nature of corrective justice, and also the fact that it comes into play in response to faulty behaviour on someone’s part. Its primary demand is that people should not lose out because others have behaved wrongfully or carelessly, but it also encompasses the idea that ‘no man should profit by his own wrong’. If Alice loses her computer in a boating accident, she might, under an insurance scheme, have a claim of distributive justice to a new machine, but she has no claim of corrective justice.

If corrective justice cannot be subsumed normatively under distributive justice, we need to explain its value. What is achieved when we make Bill return the computer to Alice? Aristotle ( Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, ch. 4) suggested that corrective justice aims to restore the two parties to a position of equality; by returning the computer we cancel both Bill’s unjustified gain and Alice’s unjustified loss. But this assumes that the computer can be returned intact. Corrective justice requires that Alice be made no worse off than she was before the theft, even if that means Bill suffering an absolute loss (e.g. by paying for a new computer if he has damaged Alice’s). Aristotle himself recognized that the idea of evening out gain and loss made no literal sense in a case where one person assaults another and has to compensate him for his injury – there is no ‘gain’ to be redistributed. It seems, then, that the value of corrective justice must lie in the principle that each person must take responsibility for his own conduct, and if he fails to respect the legitimate interests of others by causing injury, he must make good the harm. In that way, each person can plan her life secure in the knowledge that she will be protected against certain kinds of external setbacks. Philosophers and lawyers writing on corrective justice disagree about what standard of responsibility should apply – for example whether compensation is required only when one person wilfully or negligently causes another to suffer loss, or whether it can also be demanded when the perpetrator displays no such fault but is nevertheless causally responsible for the injury.

A third distinction that must be drawn is between the justice of the procedures that might be used to determine how benefits and burdens of various kinds are allocated to people, and the justice of the final allocation itself. It might initially seem as though the justice of a procedure can be reduced to the justice of the results produced by applying it, but this is not so. For one thing, there are cases in which the idea of an independently just outcome makes no sense. A coin toss is a fair way of deciding who starts a game, but neither the Blues nor the Reds have a claim of justice to bat first or kick off. But even where a procedure has been shaped by a concern that it should produce substantively just outcomes, it may still have special properties that make it intrinsically just. In that case, using a different procedure to produce the same result might be objectionable. In an influential discussion, John Rawls contrasted perfect procedural justice , where a procedure is such that if it is followed a just outcome is guaranteed (requiring the person who cuts a cake to take the last slice himself is the illustration Rawls provides), imperfect procedural justice , where the procedure is such that following it is likely, but not certain, to produce the just result, and pure procedural justice , such as the coin-tossing example, where there is no independent way to assess the outcome – if we call it just, it is only on the grounds that it has come about by following the relevant procedure (Rawls 1971, 1999, § 14).

Theories of justice can then be distinguished according to the relative weight they attach to procedures and substantive outcomes. Some theories are purely procedural in form. Robert Nozick distinguished between historical theories of justice, end-state theories, and patterned theories in order to defend the first against the second and third (Nozick 1974). An end-state theory defines justice in terms of some overall property of a distribution (of resources, welfare, etc.) – for example whether it is egalitarian, or whether the lowest position in the distribution is as high as it can be, as Rawls’ difference principle requires. A patterned theory looks at whether what each receives as part of a distribution matches some individual feature such as their desert or their need. By contrast, an historical theory asks about the process by which the final outcome has arisen. In Nozick’s particular case, a distribution of resources is said to be just if everyone within its scope is entitled to what they now own, having acquired it by legitimate means – such as voluntary contract or gift – from someone who was also entitled to have it, leading back eventually to a just act of acquisition – such as labouring on a plot of land – that gave the first owner his valid title. The shape of the final distribution is irrelevant: according to Nozick, justice is entirely a matter of the sequence of prior events that created it (for critical assessments of Nozick’s position, see Paul 1982, Wolff 1991, Cohen 1995, chs. 1–2).

For most philosophers, however, the justice of a procedure is to a large extent a function of the justice of the outcomes that it tends to produce when applied. For instance, the procedures that together make up a fair trial are justified on the grounds that for the most part they produce outcomes in which the guilty are punished and the innocent are acquitted. Yet even in these cases, we should be wary of assuming that the procedure itself has no independent value. We can ask of a procedure whether it treats the people to whom it is applied justly, for example by giving them adequate opportunities to advance their claims, not requiring them to provide personal information that they find humiliating to reveal, and so forth. Studies by social psychologists have shown that in many cases people care more about being treated fairly by the institutions they have to deal with than about how they fare when the procedure’s final result is known (Lind and Tyler 1988).

Justice takes a comparative form when to determine what is due to one person we need to look at what others can also claim: to determine how large a slice of pie is rightfully John’s, we have to know how many others have a claim to the pie, and also what the principle for sharing it should be – equality, or something else. Justice takes a non-comparative form when we can determine what is due to a person merely by knowing relevant facts about that particular person: if John has already been promised the whole of the pie, then that is what he can rightfully claim for himself. Some theories of justice seem to imply that justice is always a comparative notion – for example when it is said that justice consists in the absence of arbitrary inequality – whereas others imply that it is always non-comparative. But conceptually, at least, both forms seem admissible; indeed we can find cases in which it appears we have to choose between doing justice comparatively and doing it non-comparatively (see Feinberg 1974; for a critical response, see Montague 1980). For example, we might have several candidates all of whom are roughly equally deserving of an academic honour, but the number of honours we are permitted to award is smaller than the number of candidates. If we honour some but not others, we perpetrate a comparative injustice, but if to avoid doing so we honour no-one at all, then each is treated less well than they deserve, and so unjustly from a non-comparative perspective.

Theories of justice can then be categorised according to whether they are comparative, non-comparative, or neither. Principles of equality – principles requiring the equal distribution of some kind of benefit – are plainly comparative in form, since what is due to each person is simply an equal share of the benefit in question rather than any fixed amount. In the case of principles of desert, the position is less straightforward. These principles take the form ‘ A deserves X by virtue of P ’, where X is a mode of treatment, and P is a personal characteristic possessed by A (Feinberg 1970). In the case of both X and P , we can ask whether they are to be identified comparatively or non-comparatively. Thus what A deserves might either be an entitlement, or an absolute amount of some benefit – ‘a living wage’, say – or it might be a share of some collective benefit, or a multiple or fraction of what others are receiving – ‘twice what B is getting’, say. Turning to P , or what is often called the desert basis, this may be a feature of A that we can identify without reference to anyone else, or it may be a comparative feature, such as being the best student in a graduating class. So desert-based claims of justice might take one of four different forms depending on whether the basis of desert and/or the deserved mode of treatment is comparative or non-comparative (see Olsaretti 2003 for essays that address this question; for a more advanced treatment, see Kagan 2012, Part III).

Among principles of justice that are straightforwardly non-comparative are ‘sufficiency’ principles which hold that what justice requires is that each person should have ‘enough’, on some dimension or other – for instance, have all of their needs fulfilled, or have a specified set of capabilities that they are able to exercise (for a general defence of sufficiency, though not one that links it specifically to justice, see Frankfurt 2015; for a critique, see Casal 2007). Such principles, however, need to be supplemented by other principles, not only to tell us what to do with the surplus (assuming there is one) once everyone has sufficient resources, but also to guide us in situations where there are too few resources to bring everyone up to the sufficiency threshold. Should we, for example, maximise the number of people who achieve sufficiency, or minimise the aggregate shortfall suffered by those in the relevant group? Unless we are prepared to say that these are not matters of justice, a theory of justice that contains only the sufficiency principle and nothing else looks incomplete.

Some theories of justice cannot readily be classified either as comparative or as non-comparative. Consider one part of Rawls’ theory of social justice, the difference principle, which as noted above requires that social and economic inequalities be arranged to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged (Rawls 1971, 1999, §12–13). Under this principle, ideally just shares are calculated by determining what each person would receive under the set of social institutions whose economic effect is to raise the worst off person to the highest possible level. This is neither a fixed amount, nor one that depends in any direct sense on what other individuals are receiving, or should receive. Applying the difference principle does require making comparisons, but these are comparisons between the effects of different social institutions – say different tax laws, or different ways of defining property rights – not between individual people and the amounts of benefit they are receiving. We might call theories of this kind ‘holistic’ or ‘systemic’.

3. The Scope of Justice

When we raise questions about the scope of justice, we are asking about when principles of justice take effect and among whom . We have already, when discussing Hume, encountered the idea that there might be circumstances in which justice becomes irrelevant – circumstances in which resources are so abundant that it is pointless to allocate individual shares, or, as Hume also believed, in which resources are so scarce that everyone is permitted to grab what he can in the name of self-preservation. But even in circumstances that are less extreme than these, questions about scope arise. Who can make claims of justice, and who might have the corresponding obligation to meet them? Does this depend on the kind of thing that is being claimed? If comparative principles are being applied, who should be counted as part of the comparison group? Do some principles of justice have universal scope – they apply whenever agent A acts towards recipient B , regardless of the relationship between them – while others are contextual in character, applying only within social or political relationships of a certain kind? The present section examines some of these questions in greater detail.

What does a creature have to do, or be like, to be included within the scope of (at least some) principles of justice? Most past philosophers have assumed that the line should be drawn so as to exclude all non-human animals, but more recently some have been prepared to defend ‘justice for animals’ (Nussbaum 2006, ch. 6; Garner 2013). Against this, Rawls asserts that although we have ‘duties of compassion and humanity’ towards animals and should refrain from treating them cruelly, nonetheless they are ‘outside the scope of the theory of justice’ (Rawls 1971, p. 512; Rawls 1999, p. 448). How could this claim be justified?

We can focus our attention either on individual features that humans possess and animals lack, and that might be thought relevant to their inclusion within the scope of justice, or on asymmetries in the relationship between humans and other animals. To begin with the latter, Hume claimed that the domination humans exercised over animals – such that an animal could only possess something by virtue of our permission – meant that we were ‘bound by the laws of humanity to give gentle usage to these creatures, but should not, properly speaking, lie under any restraint of justice with regard to them’ (Hume, Enquiry , p. 190). For Rawls and those influenced by him, principles of distributive justice apply among agents who are related to one another as participants in a ‘cooperative venture for mutual advantage’, and this might seem to exclude animals from the scope of such principles. Critics of this view have pointed to cases of human-animal co-operation (Donaldson and Kymlicka 2011, Valentini 2014); however these arguments focus mainly or entirely on the special case of dogs , and it seems implausible to generalise from them in an attempt to show that human-animal relationships generally have a co-operative character.

But the claim that justice only applies to participants in co-operative practices is anyway vulnerable to the objection that it risks excluding seriously disabled people, people living in isolated communities, and future generations from the scope of justice, so it does not seem compelling as a claim about justice in general (see further below). Might there be other reasons why animals cannot make claims of justice on us? Another Rawls-inspired suggestion is that animals lack the necessary moral powers, in particular the capacity to act on principles of justice themselves. They cannot distinguish what is justly owed to them from what is not; and they cannot determine what they owe to others – whether to humans or to other non-human animals – as a matter of justice. This suggestion interprets justice as involving a kind of reciprocity: an agent to whom justice is due must also in principle be an agent who could dispense justice to others, by virtue of having the relevant capacity, even if for physical reasons – such as suffering from severe disability – they cannot do so in practice.

If this suggestion is rejected, and we allow that some animals, at least, should be included within the scope of justice, we can then ask about the form that justice should take in their cases. Using the distinction drawn in 2.4 above, it appears that justice for animals must be non-comparative. For example, we might attribute rights to the animals over whom we exercise power – rights against cruel treatment, and rights to food and shelter, for instance. This would involve using a sufficiency principle to determine what animals are owed as a matter of justice. It is much less plausible to think that comparative principles might apply, such that giving special treats to one cat but not another could count as an injustice.

The Rawlsian view introduced in the previous section, which holds that principles of social justice apply among people who are engaged together in a co-operative practice, is a leading example of a relational theory of justice. Other theories offer different accounts of the relevant justice-generating feature: for example, Nagel has argued that principles of distributive justice apply among people who by virtue of being citizens of the same state are required both to comply with, and accept responsibility for, the coercive laws that govern their lives (Nagel 2005). In both cases, the claim being made is that when people stand in a certain relationship to one another, they become subject to principles of justice whose scope is limited to those within the relationship. In particular, comparative principles apply within the relationship, but not beyond it. If A stands in a relationship (of the right kind) to B , then it becomes a matter of justice how A is treated relative to B , but it does not matter in the same way how A is treated relative to C who stands outside of the relationship. Justice may still require that C be given treatment of a certain kind, but that will be justice in its non-comparative guise.

Whether justice is relational in either of the ways that Rawls and Nagel suggest has large implications for its scope. In particular it bears on the question whether there is such a thing as global distributive justice, or, in contrast, whether distributive principles only apply to people who are related together as members of the same society or citizens of the same state. For example, might the global inequalities that exist between rich and poor in today’s world be unjust simply as inequalities, or are they unjust only insofar as they prevent poor people from living lives that we judge to be acceptable? (see entries on international distributive justice and global justice ) So much hangs on the question whether, and if so in virtue of what, distributive justice has a relational character. What reason can be given for thinking that it does?

Suppose we have two people A and B , of whom one is significantly better off than another – has greater opportunities or a higher income, say. Why should this be a concern of justice? It seems it will not be a concern unless it can be shown that the inequality between A and B can be attributed to the behaviour of some agent, individual or collective, whose actions or omissions have resulted in A being better off than B – in which case we can ask whether the inequality between them is justifiable, say on grounds of their respective deserts. This reiterates the claim in 1.4 above that without an agent to whom the outcome can be attributed there can only be justice or injustice in a metaphorical, ‘cosmic’, sense. Relational theorists claim that when people associate with one another in the relevant way, they become agents of justice. On a small scale they can organize informally to ensure that each receives what is due to him relative to the rest. On a larger scale, distributive justice requires the creation of legal and other institutions to achieve that outcome. Moreover failure to co-ordinate their actions in this way is likely to be a source of injustice by omission.

Debates about the scope of justice then become debates about whether different forms of human association are of the right kind to create agency in the relevant sense. Take the question of whether principles of social justice should apply to market transactions. If we see the market as a neutral arena in which many individual people freely pursue their own purposes, then the answer will be No. The only form of justice that arises will be justice in the conduct of each agent, who must avoid inflicting harm on others, must fulfil her contracts, and so forth. Whereas if we see the market as governed by a humanly-constructed system of rules that the participants collectively have the power to change – by legislation, for example – then we cannot avoid asking whether the outcomes it currently produces meet relevant standards of distributive justice, whatever we take these to be. A similar issue arises in the debate about over principles of global justice referred to above: is the current world order such that it makes sense to regard humanity as a whole as a collective agent responsible for the distributive outcomes it allows to occur?

Once institutions are established for the purpose (among other things) of delivering justice on a large scale, we can ask what duties of justice individual people have in consequence. Is their duty simply to support the institutions, and comply with whatever rules of conduct apply to them personally? Or do they have further duties to promote justice by acting directly on the relevant principles in their daily lives? No one doubts that some duties of justice fall directly on individuals, for example duties not to deceive or defraud when engaging in commercial transactions (and duties of corrective justice where behaviour is faulty), or duties to carry out one’s fair share of an informally organized project from which one expects to benefit, such as cleaning up the neighbourhood park. Others fall on them because they are performing a role within a social institution, for example the duty of an employer not to discriminate on grounds of race or gender when hiring workers, or the duty of a local government officer to assign public housing to those in greatest need. But what is much more in dispute is whether individual people have more extensive duties to promote social justice (for contrasting views, see Cohen 2008, ch. 3, Murphy 1998, Rawls 1993, Lecture VII, Young 2011, ch. 2).

Consider two cases: the first concerns parents who confer advantages on their children in ways that undermine fair equality of opportunity. If the latter principle of justice requires, to cite Rawls, that ‘those who have the same level of talent and ability and the same willingness to use these gifts should have the same prospects of success regardless of their social class of origin’ (Rawls 2001, p. 44) then there are myriad ways in which some parents can bestow advantages on their children that other parents cannot – financial benefits, educational opportunities, social contacts, and so forth – that are likely to bring greater success in later life. Are parents therefore constrained as a matter of justice to avoid conferring at least some of these advantages, or are they free to benefit their children as they choose, leaving the pursuit of equal opportunities entirely in the hands of the state (for a careful analysis, see Brighouse and Swift 2014)?

The second example concerns wage differentials. Might individuals whose talents can bring them high rewards in the labour market have a duty not to make use of their bargaining power, but instead be willing to work for a fair wage – which if fairness is understood in egalitarian terms might mean the same wage as everyone else (perhaps with extra compensation for those whose labour is unusually burdensome)? Rawls, as we saw above, argued that economic justice meant arranging social and economic inequalities to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged, and in formulating the principle in this way he assumed that some inequalities might serve as incentives to greater production that would also raise the position of the worst-off group in society. But if individuals were willing to forego incentives, and so economic inequalities served no useful purpose, then the arrangement that worked to the greatest benefit of the (otherwise) least advantaged would be one of strict equality. Cohen (2008) argues that Rawls’ position is internally inconsistent. As citizens designing our institutions we are supposed to be guided by the difference principle, but as private actors in the marketplace, we are permitted to ignore that principle and bargain for higher wages, even though doing so will work to the disadvantage of the worst-off group. Justice, according to Cohen, requires us to embrace an ethos of service that disdains material incentives.

Why might we hesitate before agreeing that in cases such as these, justice requires people to refrain from doing things that they are permitted to do by the public rules of their society (passing on benefits to their children; seeking higher wages)? One reason is that the refraining is only going to have a significant effect if it is practised on a large scale, and individuals have no assurance that others will follow their example; meanwhile they (or their children) will lose out relative to the less scrupulous. A connected reason has to do with publicity: it may be hard to detect whether people are following the required ethos or not (see Williams 1998). Is the person who sends her child to a private school because she claims he has special needs that the local state school cannot meet being sincere, or is she just trying to buy him comparative advantage? How can we tell whether the person who claims more money, but merely, he says, as compensation for the unusual stress that his work involves, is reporting honestly? (for Cohen’s response, see Cohen 2008, ch. 8) It appears, then, that there are principles of justice that apply to what Rawls calls ‘the basic structure of society [as] a public system of rules’ that do not apply in the same way to the personal behaviour of the individuals who live within that structure. Attending to the scope , as well as the content , of justice is important.

Recent philosophical writing on justice has drawn attention to forms of injustice that do not involve the material treatment that people receive, either from other persons or from institutions, but the harms they suffer through failures of recognition. They are impacted by social norms and social practices that diminish their sense of agency and induce them to see themselves as of lesser value than others. Here then justice is understood as being adequately and appropriately recognized, and injustice as involving failures of recognition, or in some cases ‘misrecognition’, when a person is placed in a category or assigned an identity that is not their own. In one influential formulation of this idea, ‘it is unjust that some individuals and groups are denied the status of full partners in social interaction simply as a consequence of institutionalized patterns of cultural value in whose construction they have not equally participated and which disparage their distinctive characteristics or the distinctive characteristics assigned to them’ (Fraser in Fraser and Honneth 2003, p. 29).

What, then, does it mean to be recognized? In general it means to be viewed and treated by others in the way that is appropriate to the features that you possess, but most philosophers regard recognition as multidimensional. In particular, they distinguish between being recognized as an equal, where a person is accorded the kind of standing that gives them an equal status with other members of the relevant group, and being recognized for having characteristics, achievements or an identity that may be uniquely their own. Recognition in this second sense may involve the unequal granting of social esteem. Justice as recognition, therefore, is internally complex. At the social level, Axel Honneth distinguishes ‘three forms of social recognition, based in the sphere-specific principles of love, equal legal treatment, and social esteem’ (Fraser and Honneth 2003 p. 180)

The question that arises is how best to understand the relationship between justice of this kind and distributive justice, involving the allocation of material resources and so forth. For Honneth, justice as recognition is understood expansively so that it can also capture issues of economic justice, the thought being that the harm inflicted when, say, labour is not adequately rewarded can be understood as a failure to offer adequate recognition of the worker’s social contribution. For Nancy Fraser, by contrast, recognition and redistribution are seen as two mutually irreducible but jointly necessary conditions for social justice. Failures of recognition can be experienced by some among the economically privileged – such as ‘the African-American Wall Street banker who cannot get a taxi to pick him up’ (Fraser and Honneth 2003, p. 34). Justice as recognition requires cultural shifts in the way that different forms of identity and different types of achievement are valued that are independent of the institutional changes required to achieve distributive justice.

A particular form of recognitional injustice is epistemic injustice as diagnosed by Miranda Fricker (Fricker 2007). This occurs when someone is wronged in their capacity as a source of knowledge, and it takes two main forms: testimonial injustice and hermeneutic injustice. As Fricker explains ‘testimonial injustice occurs when prejudice causes a hearer to give a deflated level of credibility to a speaker’s word; hermeneutical injustice occurs at a prior stage when a gap in collective interpretive resources puts someone as at an unfair disadvantage when it comes to making sense of their social experiences’ (Fricker 2007, p. 1). She argues that testimonial injustice matters for two reasons. First, the person who suffers from it is less able to protect or advance their interests – for example they are less likely to be believed when having to defend themselves in court. Second, since others are unwilling to regard them as competent sources of knowledge, they may lose trust in their own capacity to know, leading in some cases to ‘prolonged self-doubt and loss of intellectual confidence’.

Hermeneutical injustice arises in the context of unequal relationships in which the subordinated party lacks the concept or concepts needed to make sense of their experience (and thereby to challenge their subordination). Fricker uses the example of a woman who suffered sexual harassment at the time before feminists had developed that concept, and so had no adequate word to describe what she was experiencing. Hermeneutical injustice matters most when it is systematic, brought about by power inequalities that leave certain groups ‘hermeneutically marginalised’. However she treats epistemic justice as a virtue that individual hearers can develop, in contrast to recognition theorists like Fraser and Honneth for whom achieving recognitional justice requires collective action to change social and cultural norms on the part of misrecognized groups.

4. Utilitarianism and Justice

Can justice be understood in utilitarian terms? This may in the first place depend on how we interpret utilitarianism. We treat it here as a normative theory whose aim is to supply a criterion – the greatest happiness principle – that can be used, directly or indirectly, both by individuals and by institutions (such as states) in deciding what to do, rather than simply as a tool for evaluating states of affairs. Utilitarianism cannot plausibly provide a theory of justice unless it is interpreted in this action-guiding way, in light of what was said above about justice and agency. We also assume that the most likely candidate will be a rule-utilitarian view that treats principles of justice as belonging to the set of rules which when followed by the relevant agents will tend to produce the greatest total utility (for different ways of formulating this view, see the entry on rule consequentialism) .

Most utilitarians have regarded it as part of their task in defending utilitarianism to show that it can both accommodate and explain much of what we intuitively believe about justice. This is certainly true of two of the greatest among them, John Stuart Mill and Sidgwick, both of whom went to considerable lengths to show that familiar principles of justice could be given a utilitarian rationale (Mill Utilitarianism , ch. 5; Sidgwick 1874/1907, Book III, ch.5). Bentham, in contrast, was more cavalier: ‘justice, in the only sense in which it has a meaning, is an imaginary personage, feigned for the convenience of discourse, whose dictates are the dictates of utility, applied to certain particular cases’ ( The Principles of Morals and Legislation , pp. 125–6). If we follow the lead of Mill and Sidgwick in wishing to take seriously how justice is commonly understood, the utilitarian has two challenges to face. First he or she must show that the demands of justice as commonly understood correspond roughly to the rules that when followed by persons, or implemented by institutions, are most conducive to the greatest happiness. They need not mirror the latter exactly, because utilitarians will argue, as both Mill and Sidgwick did, that our intuitions about justice are often ambiguous or internally inconsistent, but there must be enough overlap to warrant the claim that what the utilitarian theory can accommodate and explain is indeed justice . (As Sidgwick (1874/1907, p. 264) put it, ‘we may, so to speak, clip the ragged edge of common usage, but we must not make excision of any considerable portion’.) Second, some explanation must be given for the distinctiveness of justice. Why do we have a concept that is used to mark off a particular set of requirements and claims if the normative basis for these requirements and claims is nothing other than general utility? What accounts for our intuitive sense of justice? The task confronting the utilitarian, then, is to systematize our understanding of justice without obliterating it.

By way of illustration, both Mill and Sidgwick recognize that desert , of both reward and punishment, is a key component of common understandings of justice, but they argue that if we remain at the level of common sense when we try to analyse it, we run into irresolvable contradictions. For instance, we are inclined to think that a person’s deserts should depend on what they have actually achieved – say the economic value of what they have produced – but also, because achievement will depend on factors for which the person in question can claim no credit, such as inborn talent, that their deserts should depend only on factors for which they are directly responsible, such as the amount of effort they expend. Each of these conceptions, when put into practice, would lead to a quite different schedule of rewards, and the only means to escape the impasse, these utilitarians claim, is to ask which schedule will generate most utility by directing people’s choices and efforts in the most socially productive way. Similar reasoning applies to the principles of punishment: the rules we should follow are the rules that are most conducive to the ends for which punishment is instituted, such as deterring crime.

To explain the distinctiveness of justice, Mill suggests that it designates moral requirements that, because of their very great importance to human well-being, people have a right to have discharged, and are therefore matters of perfect obligation. A person who commits an injustice is always liable to punishment of some kind, he argues. So he explains our sense of justice in terms of the resentment we feel towards someone who breaches these requirements. Sidgwick, who laid greater stress than Mill on the connection between justice and law, also underlined the relationship between justice and gratitude, on one side, and resentment, on the other, in order to capture the way in which our concern for justice seems to differ from our concern for utility in general.

Yet despite these efforts to reconcile justice and utility, three serious obstacles still remain. The first concerns what we might call the currency of justice: justice has to do with the way that tangible benefits and burdens are assigned, and not with the happiness or unhappiness that the assignees experience. It is a matter of justice, for example, that people should be paid the right amount for the jobs that they do, but, special circumstances aside, it is no concern of justice that John derives more satisfaction from his fairly-earned income than Jane does from hers (but see Cohen 1989 for a different view). There is so to speak, a division of labour, under which rights, opportunities, and material benefits of various kinds are allocated by principles of justice, while the conversion of these into units of utility (or disutility) is the responsibility of each individual recipient (see Dworkin 2000, ch. 1). Utilitarians will therefore find it hard to explain what from their point of view seems to be the fetishistic concern of justice over how the means to happiness are distributed, rather than happiness itself.

The second obstacle is that utilitarianism judges outcomes by totalling up utility levels, and has no independent concern for how that utility is distributed between persons. So even if we set aside the currency issue, utilitarian theory seems unable to capture justice’s demand that each should receive what is due to her regardless of the total amount of benefit this generates. Defenders of utilitarianism will argue that when the conduct-guiding rules are being formulated, attention will be paid to distributive questions. In particular, when resources are being distributed among people we know little about individually, there are good reasons to favour equality, since in most cases resources have diminishing marginal utility – the more of them you have, the less satisfaction you derive from additional instalments. Yet this is only a contingent matter. If some people are very adept at turning resources into well-being – they are so-called ‘utility monsters’ – then a utilitarian should support a rule that privileges them. This seems repugnant to justice. As Rawls famously put the general point, ‘each member of society is thought to have an inviolability founded on justice which….even the welfare of every one else cannot override’ (Rawls 1971, p. 28; Rawls 1999, pp. 24–25).

The third and final difficulty stems from utilitarianism’s thoroughgoing consequentialism. Rules are assessed strictly in the light of the consequences of adopting then, not in terms of their intrinsic properties. Of course, when agents follow rules, they are meant to do what the rule requires rather than to calculate consequences directly. But for a utilitarian, it is never going to be a good reason for adopting a rule that it will give people what they deserve or what they are entitled to, when desert or entitlement are created by events in the past, such as a person’s having performed a worthwhile action or entered an agreement. Backward-looking reasons have to be transmuted into forward-looking reasons in order to count. If a rule such as pacta sunt servanda (‘agreements must be kept’) is going to be adopted on utilitarian grounds, this is not because there is any inherent wrongness in defaulting on a compact one has made, but because a rule that compacts must be kept is a useful one, since it allows people to co-ordinate their behaviour knowing that their expectations about the future are likely to be met. But justice, although not always backward-looking in the sense explained, often is. What is due to a person is in many cases what they deserve for what they have done, or what they are entitled to by virtue of past transactions. So even if it were possible to construct a forward-looking rationale for having rules that closely tracked desert or entitlement as these are normally understood, the utilitarian still cannot capture the sense of justice – why it matters that people should get what is due to then – that informs our common-sense judgements.

Utilitarians might reply that their reconstruction preserves what is rationally defensible in common sense beliefs while what it discards are elements that cannot survive sustained critical reflection. But this would bring them closer to Bentham’s view that justice, as commonly understood, is nothing but a ‘phantom’.

5. Contractarianism and Justice

The shortcomings of utilitarianism have prompted several recent philosophers to revive the old idea of the social contract as a better way of bringing coherence to our thinking about justice. The idea here is not that people actually have entered a contract to establish justice, or that they should proceed to do so, but that we can understand justice better by asking the question: what principles to govern their institutions, practices and personal behaviour would people choose to adopt if they all had to agree on them in advance? The contract, in other words, is hypothetical; but the search for agreement is meant to ensure that the principles chosen would, when implemented, not lead to outcomes that people could not accept. Thus whereas a utilitarian might, under some circumstances, be prepared to support slavery – if the misery of the slaves were outweighed by the heightened pleasures of the slave-owners – contractarians claims that no-one could accept a principle permitting slavery, lest they themselves were destined to be slaves when the principle was applied.

The problem that contractarians face is to show how such an agreement is possible. If we were to ask people, in the real world, what principles they would prefer to live under, they are likely to start from a position of quite radical disagreement, given their interests and their beliefs. Some might even be willing to endorse slavery, if they were fairly certain that they would not end up as slaves themselves, or if they were sado-masochists who viewed the humiliations inflicted on slaves in a positive light. So in order to show how agreement could be achieved, contractarians have to model the contracting parties in a particular way, either by limiting what they are allowed to know about themselves or about the future, or by attributing to them certain motivations while excluding others. Since the modelling can be done differently, we have a family of contractarian theories of justice, three of whose most important members are the theories of Gauthier, Rawls and Scanlon.

Gauthier (1986) presents the social contract as a bargain between rational individuals who can gain through co-operating with one another, but who are competing over the division of the resulting surplus. He assumes that each is interested only in trying to maximise his own welfare, and he also assumes that there is a non-co-operative baseline from which the bargaining begins – so nobody would accept a solution that left her less well off than in the baseline condition. Each person can identify the outcome under which they fare best – their maximum gain – but they have no reason to expect others to accept that. Gauthier argues that rational bargainers will converge on the principle of Minimax Relative Concession , which requires each to concede the same relative proportion of their maximum possible gain relative to the non-co-operative baseline. Thus suppose there is a feasible arrangement whereby each participant can achieve two-thirds of their maximum gain, but no arrangement under which they all do better than that, then this is the arrangement that the principle recommends. Each person has made the same concession relative to the outcome that is best for them personally – not accepting the same absolute loss of welfare, let it be noted, but the same proportionate loss.

There are some internal difficulties with Gauthier’s theory that need to be recorded briefly (for a full discussion, see Barry 1989, esp. Part III). One is whether Minimax Relative Concession is in fact the correct solution to the bargaining problem that Gauthier introduces, as opposed to the standard Nash solution which (in a simple two-person case) selects the outcome in which the product of the two parties’ utilities is maximised (for discussion of different solutions to the bargaining problem, see the entry on contemporary approaches to the social contract , § 3.2). A second is whether Gauthier is able to justify positing a ‘Lockean’ baseline, under which each is assumed to respect the natural rights of the others, as the starting point for bargaining over the surplus – as opposed to a more conflictual ‘Hobbesian’ baseline in which individuals are permitted to use their natural powers to threaten one another in the process of establishing what each could expect to get in the absence of co-operation. But the larger question is whether a contract modelled in this way is an appropriate device for delivering principles of justice. On the one hand, it captures the idea that the practice of justice should work to everyone’s advantage, while requiring all those involved to moderate the demands they make on one another. On the other hand, it prescribes a final distribution of benefit that appears morally arbitrary, in the sense that A ’s bargaining advantage over B – which stems from the fact that his maximum possible gain is greater than hers – allows him to claim a higher level of benefit as a matter of justice . This seems implausible: there may be prudential reasons to recommend a distribution that reflects the outcome that self-interested and rational bargainers would arrive at, but claims of justice need a different basis.

John Rawls’ theory of justice is the most widely-cited example of a contractarian theory, but before outlining it, two words of caution are necessary. First, the shape of the theory has evolved from its first incarnation in Rawls (1958) through his major work A Theory of Justice (Rawls 1971) and on to Rawls (1993) and Rawls (2001). Second, although Rawls has consistently claimed that the principles of justice he defends are the principles that would be selected by people in a suitably designed ‘original position’ in which they are asked to choose the social and political institutions they will live under – this is what qualifies his theory as contractarian – it is less clear how important a role the contract itself plays in his thinking. His principles, which are discussed elsewhere (see the entry on John Rawls) , can be defended on their own merits as a theory of social justice for a modern liberal society, even if their contractual grounding proves to be unsound. Rawls presents the contracting parties as seeking to advance their own interests as they decide which principles to favour, but under two informational constraints. First, they are not allowed to know their own ‘conception of the good’ – what ends they personally find it most valuable to pursue – so the principles must be couched in terms of ‘primary goods’, understood as goods that it is better to have more rather than less of whatever conception of the good you favour. Second, they are placed behind a ‘veil of ignorance’ that deprives them of any knowledge of personal characteristics, such as their gender, their place in society, or the talents and skills they possess. This means that they have no basis on which to bargain for advantage, and have to consider themselves as generic persons who might be male or female, talented or untalented, and so forth. In consequence, Rawls argues, all will choose to live under impartial principles that work to no-one’s advantage in particular.

The problem for Rawls, however, is to show that the principles that would be selected in such an original position are in fact recognizable as principles of justice . One might expect the parties to calculate how to weigh the primary goods (which Rawls catalogues as ‘rights and liberties, opportunities and powers, income and wealth’) against each other, and then to choose as their social principle ‘maximise the weighted sum of primary goods, averaged across all persons’. This, however, would bring the theory very close to utilitarianism, since the natural method of weighing primary goods is to ask how much utility having a given quantity of each is likely, on average, to bring (for the claim that utilitarianism would be chosen in a Rawlsian original position, see Harsanyi 1975). Since Rawls wishes to reject utilitarianism, he has to adjust the psychology of the parties in the original position so that they reason differently. Thus he suggests that, at least in developed societies, people have special reason to prioritise liberty over the other goods and to ensure that it is equally distributed: he argues that this is essential to safeguard their self-respect. In later writing his argument is less empirical: now the parties to the contract are endowed with ‘moral powers’ that must be exercised, and it is then fairly easy to show that this requires them to have a set of basic liberties.

When he turns to the distribution of income and wealth, Rawls has to show why his choosers would pick the difference principle, which considers only the position of the worst-off social group, over other principles such as maximising average income across the whole society. In Theory of Justice he does this by attributing special psychological features to the choosers that make it appropriate for them to follow the ‘maximin’ rule for decisions under uncertainty (choose the option whose worst possible outcome is least bad for you). For example, they are said to be much more concerned to achieve the minimum level of income that the difference principle would guarantee them than to enjoy increases above that level. In his later work, he abandons this reliance on maximin reasoning and gives greater prominence to another argument hinted at in Theory . This portrays the contracting parties as starting out from the presumption that income and wealth should be distributed equally, but then recognizing that all can benefit by permitting certain inequalities to arise. When these inequalities are governed by the difference principle, they can be justified to everyone, including the worst off, thus creating the conditions for a more stable society. But we need then to ask why equal distribution should be treated as the benchmark, departures from which require special justification. When Rawls says that it is ‘not reasonable’ for any of the parties initially to expect more than an equal share (Rawls 1971, p. 150; Rawls 1999, p. 130), is this simply a corollary of their position as rational choosers behind a veil of ignorance, or has Rawls in addition endowed them with a substantive sense of justice that includes this presumption of equality?

Although Rawls throughout presents his theory of justice as contractarian, we can now see that the terms of the contract are in part determined by prior normative principles that Rawls engineers the parties to follow. So in contrast to Gauthier, it is no longer simply a case of self-interested contractors negotiating their way to an agreement. Rawls candidly admits that the contractual situation has to be adjusted so that it yields results that match our pre-existing convictions about justice. But then we may ask how much work the contractual apparatus is really doing (see Barry 1989, ch. 9 for a critical appraisal).

Scanlon (1998) does not attempt to deliver a theory of justice in the same sense as Rawls, but his contractarian account of that part of morality that specifies ‘what we owe to each other’ covers much of the same terrain (for an explicit attempt to analyse justice in Scanlonian terms, see Barry 1995). Like Rawls, Scanlon is concerned to develop an alternative to utilitarianism, and he does so by developing a test that any candidate moral principle must pass: it must be such that no-one could reasonably reject it as the basis for informed, unforced general agreement (see the entry on contractualism ). Scanlon’s contractors are not positioned behind a veil of ignorance. They are able to see what effect adopting any proposed principle would have on them personally. If that effect is unacceptable to them, they are permitted to reject it. Each person has, so to speak, a veto on any general principle for regulating conduct. Those that survive this test are defensible as principles of justice – Scanlon concedes that there might be alternative sets of such principles appropriate to different social conditions.

It might seem, however, that giving each person a veto would lead straightforwardly to deadlock, since anyone might reject a principle under which he fared badly relative to some alternative. Here the idea of reasonable rejection becomes important. It would not, Scanlon thinks, be reasonable to reject a principle under which one does badly if the alternatives all involve someone else faring worse still. One needs to take account of other people’s reasons for rejecting these alternatives. It might then appear that Scanlon’s contractualism yields the difference principle, which requires the worst-off group in society to be as well of as they can be. But this is not the conclusion that Scanlon draws (though he acknowledges that there might be special reasons to follow Rawls in requiring basic social institutions to follow the difference principle). The claims of other groups must be considered too. If a policy greatly benefits many others, while slightly worsening the position of a few, though without leaving them very badly off, it may well not be rejectable. Scanlon’s position leaves some room for aggregation – it makes a difference how many people will be benefitted if a principle is followed – though not the simple form of aggregation that utilitarians defend.

Scanlon also says that a person can have a reason for rejecting a principle if it treats them unfairly, say by benefitting some but not others for arbitrary reasons. This presupposes a norm of fairness that the contractarian theory does not itself attempt to explain or justify. So it looks as though the purpose of the theory is to provide a distinctive account of moral reasoning (and moral motivation) but not to defend any substantive principles of distributive justice. In this respect, Scanlon’s contractualism is less ambitious than either Gauthier’s or Rawls’.

6. Egalitarianism and Justice

In the recent past, many philosophers have sought to establish a close connection between justice and equality: they ask the question ‘what kind of equality does justice require?’, and to that several competing answers have been given (see, for example Cohen 1989, Dworkin 2000, Sen 1980). But we should not be too hasty to assume that what justice demands is always equality, whether of treatment or of outcome. Perhaps it does so only in a formal sense. As we saw in sect 1.3, justice requires the impartial and consistent application of rules, from which it follows that when two people are alike in all relevant respects, they must be treated equally. But, as Aristotle among others saw, justice also involves the idea of proportional treatment, which implies recipients getting unequal amounts of whatever good is at issue (Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , Book V, ch. 3). If A is twice as deserving or twice as needy as B , justice may require that she receives more than B does. So here formal equality of treatment – the same rule applied to both – leads to an unequal outcome. Again, when justice takes the conservative form of respect for existing entitlements or legitimate expectations (see para 2.1) there is no reason to anticipate that what is due to different people will be substantively the same.

So we need to ask about the circumstances in which justice requires a substantively equal distribution of advantages. One rather obvious case occurs when the members of the group within which the distribution is going to occur have no relevant distinguishing features, so there are no grounds on which some can claim greater shares of benefit than others. Suppose a group experiences a windfall gain for which no-one can claim any credit: a pot of gold somehow appears in their midst. Then unless any member can make a justice-related claim for a larger-than-equal share – say that she has special needs that she lacks sufficient resources to meet – an equal distribution of the gold is what justice demands, since any other distribution would be arbitrary. Equality here is the default principle that applies in the absence of any special claims that can be presented as reasons of justice.

Equality also acts as a default in circumstances where, although people may indeed have unequal claims to whatever good is being distributed, we have no reliable way of identifying and measuring those claims. By sharing the good equally, we can at least ensure that every claim has been partially satisfied. Thus suppose we have limited supplies of a drug that can treat malaria, and a number of patients displaying symptoms of the disease, but lacking specialised medical knowledge we cannot tell whether one person’s condition is more serious than another’s; then by sharing out the drug equally, we can guarantee that each person at least receives the highest fraction of what they really need. Any other distribution must leave at least one person with less (this of course assumes that there is no threshold amount of the drug beneath which it is ineffective; if that assumption is wrong, justice under the stated conditions might require a lottery in which the chosen ones receive threshold-size doses).

If justice requires equality only by default, it might seem to apply only in a narrow range of cases. How could egalitarian justice be made more robust? One approach involves declaring a wider range of factors irrelevant to just distribution. Thus one formulation of the principle holds that no-one should be worse-off than anyone else as a result of their ‘morally arbitrary’ characteristics, where a characteristic is morally arbitrary when its possessor cannot claim credit for having it. This captures a widespread intuition that people should not be advantaged or disadvantaged by virtue of their race or gender, but extends it (more controversially) to all personal features with a genetic basis, such as natural talents and inborn dispositions. In doing so, it discounts most claims of desert, since when people are said to deserve benefits of various kinds, it is usually for performing actions or displaying qualities that depend upon innate characteristics such as strength or intelligence. In the following section, we will see how egalitarian theories of justice have tried to incorporate some desert-like elements by way of response. But otherwise justice as equality and justice as desert appear to be in conflict, and the challenge is to show what can justify equal treatment in the face of inequalities of desert.

A second approach answers this challenge by explaining why it is positively valuable to afford people equal treatment even if they do display features that might appear to justify differential treatment. A prominent advocate of this approach is Dworkin, who argues that fundamental to justice is a principle of equal concern and respect for persons, and what this means in more concrete term is that equal resources should be devoted to the life of each member of society (Dworkin 2000). (The reference to membership here is not redundant, because Dworkin understands egalitarian justice as a principle that must be applied within sovereign states specifically – so in the terms of 3.2, this is a relational view of justice.) The thought is that showing persons equal respect may sometimes require us to afford them equal treatment, even in the face of relevant grounds for discrimination. Thus we insist on political equality – one person, one vote – even though we know that there are quite large differences in people’s competence to make political decisions.

As noted above, justice as simple equality of treatment seems open to the objection that it fails to acknowledge the agency of the recipients, who may have acted in ways that appear to qualify them to receive more (or less) of whatever benefit is being distributed. To answer this objection, several recent philosophers have presented alternative versions of ‘responsibility-sensitive egalitarianism’ – a family of theories of justice that treat equal distribution as a starting point but allow for departures from that baseline when these result from the responsible choices made by individuals (see Knight and Stemplowska 2011 for examples). These theories differ along several dimensions: the ‘currency of justice’ used to define the baseline of equality, the conditions that must be fulfilled for a choice to qualify as responsible, and which among the consequences that follow from a choice should count when the justice of an outcome is being assessed (it may in particular appear unjust to allow people to suffer the full consequences of bad choices that they could not reasonably have anticipated). The label that is often used to describe a sub-class of these theories is ‘luck egalitarianism’. According to luck egalitarians, justice requires that no-one should be disadvantaged relative to others on account of ‘brute’ bad luck, whereas inequalities that arise through the exercise of personal responsibility are permissible (for a full discussion of luck egalitarianism, see the entry on justice and bad luck ). ‘Brute’ luck is interpreted widely to include not only external circumstances such as one person’s initially having access to more resources than another, but also internal factors such as possessing natural abilities or disabilities, or having involuntarily acquired expensive tastes. All such inequalities are to be ironed out by redistribution or compensation, while people’s choices about how to use the assets they are granted should be respected, even if this leads to significant inequality in the long run.

Luck egalitarianism has proved surprisingly influential in recent debates on justice, despite the evident difficulties involved in, for example, quantifying ‘brute luck disadvantage’ in such a way that a compensatory scheme could be established. There are, however, a number of problems it has to face. By giving scope to personal responsibility, it seeks to capture what is perhaps the most attractive part of the conventional idea of desert – that people should be rewarded for making good choices and penalised for making bad ones – while filtering out the effects of having (undeserved) natural talents. But in reality the choices that people make are influenced by the talents and other qualities that they happen to have already. So if we allow someone to reap advantages by, for example, devoting long hours to learning to play the piano at a high level, we must recognize that this is a choice that she would almost certainly not have made unless early experiment showed that she was musically gifted. We cannot say what she would have chosen to do in a counterfactual world in which she was tone deaf. There seems then to be no coherent half-way house between accepting full-blooded desert and denying that people can justly claim relative advantage through the exercise of responsibility and choice (see further Miller 1999, ch. 7) .

A second problem is that one person’s exercise of responsibility may prove advantageous or disadvantageous to others, even though they have done nothing to bring this change about, so from their point of view it must count as ‘brute’ luck. This will be true, for example, in any case in which people are competing to excel in some field, where successful choices made by A will worsen the comparative position of B , C , and D . Or again, if A acts in a way that benefits B , but does nothing comparable to improve the position of C and D , then an inequality is created that counts as ‘brute bad luck’ from the perspective of the latter. One of the most influential exponents of luck egalitarianism seems to have recognized the problem in a late essay: ‘unlike plain egalitarianism, luck egalitarianism is paradoxical, because the use of shares by people is bound to lead to a distribution flecked by luck’ (Cohen 2011, p. 142).

We have seen that equality can sometimes be understood as required by justice; but it can also be valued independently. Indeed there can be circumstances in which the two values collide, because what justice demands is inequality of outcome. The kind of inequality that is independently valuable is social equality, best understood as a property of the relationships that prevail within a society: people regard and treat each other as social equals, and the society’s institutions are designed to foster and reflect such attitudes. A society of equals contrasts with one in which people belong to different ranks in a social hierarchy, and behave towards one another as their relative ranking prescribes. Different reasons can be given for objecting to social inequality, and conversely for valuing social equality (see Scanlon 2003).

Those who find equality valuable for reasons other than reasons of distributive justice are often described as ‘relational egalitarians’ (see Anderson 1999, Wolff 1998, Fourie, Schuppert and Wallimann-Helmer 2015). It is tempting to regard relational egalitarianism as a rival theory of justice to the luck egalitarian theory outlined in §6.2, but it may be more illuminating to see it instead as providing an alternative account of why we should care about limiting material inequality. Thus, faced with a world like the one we currently inhabit in which income differences are very large, justice theorists are likely to criticize these inequalities on grounds that they are not deserved, or arise from brute luck, etc., whereas relational egalitarians will say that they create a divided society in which people are alienated from each other, and cannot interact in a mutually respectful way. Relational equality does not address issues of distribution directly, and so cannot function as a theory of justice itself, but it can provide grounds for preferring one theory of justice to its rivals – namely that implementing that particular theory is more likely to create or sustain a society of equals.

We saw at the beginning of this article that justice can take a number of different forms, depending on the practical context in which it is being applied. Although we found common elements running through this diversity of use – most readily captured in Justinian’s ‘suum cuique ’ formula – these were formal rather than substantive. In these circumstances, it is natural to look for an overarching framework into which the various contextually specific conceptions of justice can all be fitted. Three such frameworks were examined: utilitarianism, contractarianism and egalitarianism. None, however, passed what we might call the ‘Sidgwick/Rawls test’, namely that of incorporating and explaining the majority at least of our considered convictions about justice – beliefs that we feel confident in holding about what justice requires us to do in a wide and varied range of circumstances (for Rawls’ version of the test see the entry on reflective equilibrium ). So unless we are willing to jettison many of these convictions in order to uphold one or other general framework, we will need to accept that no comprehensive theory of justice is available to us; we will have to make do with partial theories – theories about what justice requires in particular domains of human life. Rawls himself, despite the bold title of his first book ( A Theory of Justice ), came to recognize that what he had outlined was at best a theory of social justice applied to the basic institutional structure of a modern liberal state. Other forms of justice – familial, allocative, associational, international – with their associated principles would be applicable in their respective domains (for an even more explicitly pluralist account of justice, see Walzer 1983; for a fuller defence of a contextual approach to justice, see Miller 2013, esp. ch. 2).

One way to loosen up our thinking about justice is by paying greater attention to the history of the concept. We can learn a great deal by reading what Aristotle, or Aquinas, or Hume, has to say about the concept, but as we do so, we also see that elements we would expect to find are missing (there is nothing about rights in Aristotle, for example), while others that we would not anticipate are present. This may in some part be due to the idiosyncrasies of each thinker, but more importantly it reflects differences in the form of social life in which each was embedded – its economic, legal and political structure, especially. Various attempts have been made to write histories of justice that are more than just catalogues of what individual thinkers have said: they aim to trace and explain systematic shifts in the way that justice has been interpreted (for contrasting examples, see MacIntyre 1988, Fleischacker 2004, Johnston 2011). These should not be read as enlightenment stories in which our understanding of justice steadily improves as the centuries roll by. MacIntyre’s view, for example, is that modern liberal societies cannot sustain the practices within which notions of justice find their proper home. We can get a better grasp of what justice means to us by seeing the various conceptions that compete for our attention as tied to aspects of our social world that did not exist in the past, and are equally liable to disappear in the future.

• Anderson, Elizabeth, 1999, “What is the Point of Equality?” Ethics , 109: 287–337.
• Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics , translated by Roger Crisp, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.
• –––, The Politics , translated by Thomas Sinclair, Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1962.
• Barry, Brian, 1989, Theories of Justice , Hemel Hempstead: Harvester-Wheatsheaf.
• –––, 1995, Justice as Impartiality , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Bentham, Jeremy, The Principles of Morals and Legislation , ed. Laurence Lafleur, New York: Hafner Press, 1948.
• Brighouse, Harry and Adam Swift, 2014, Family Values: the ethics of parent-child relationships , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Buchanan, Allen, 1987, “Justice and Charity,” Ethics , 97: 558–75.
• Casal, Paula, 2007, “Why Sufficiency Is Not Enough,” Ethics , 117: 296–326.
• Cohen, G.A., 1989, “On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice,” Ethics , 99: 906–44.
• –––, 1995, Self-Ownership, Freedom, and Equality , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• –––, 2008, Rescuing Justice and Equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2011, “Fairness and Legitimacy in Justice, and: Does Option Luck ever Preserve Justice?” in On the Currency of Egalitarian Justice and Other Essays in Political Philosophy , edited by Michael Otsuka, Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Coleman, Jules, 1992, Risks and Wrongs , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Donaldson, Sue and Will Kymlicka, 2011, Zoopolis: a political theory of animals rights , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Dworkin, Ronald, 2000, Sovereign Virtue: the theory and practice of equality , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Feinberg, Joel, 1970, “Justice and Personal Desert,” in Doing and Deserving: essays in the theory of responsibility , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• –––, 1974, “Noncomparative Justice,” Philosophical Review , 83: 297–338.
• Fleischacker, Samuel, 2004, A Short History of Distributive Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Fourie, Carina, Fabian Schuppert and Ivo Wallimann-Helmer (eds.), 2015, Social Equality: on what it means to be equals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Frankfurt, Harry, 2015, On Inequality , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
• Fraser, Nancy and Axel Honneth, 2003, Redistribution or Recognition? : a political-philosophical exchange , London: Verso.
• Fricker, Miranda, 2007, Epistemic Injustice; power and the ethics of knowing , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Garner, Robert, 2013, A Theory of Justice for Animals , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Gauthier, David, 1986, Morals by Agreement , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Harsanyi, John, 1975, “Can the Maximin Principle Serve as a Basis for Morality? A Critique of John Rawls’s Theory,” American Political Science Review , 69: 594–606.
• Hayek, Friedrich, 1976, Law, Legislation and Liberty (Volume II: The Mirage of Social Justice ), London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
• Hume, David, A Treatise of Human Nature , edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.
• –––, An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals in Enquiries Concerning Human Understanding and Concerning the Principles of Morals , edited by L. A. Selby-Bigge, revised by P.H. Nidditch, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975.
• Johnston, David, 2011, A Brief History of Justice , Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
• Kagan, Shelly, 2012, The Geometry of Desert , New York: Oxford University Press.
• Knight, Carl and Zofia Stemplowska (eds.), 2011, Responsibility and Distributive Justice , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Lind, E. Allan and Tom Tyler, 1988, The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice , New York and London: Plenum Press.
• MacIntyre, Alasdair, 1988, Whose Justice? Which Rationality? , London: Duckworth.
• Mill, John Stuart, Utilitarianism in Utilitarianism, On Liberty, Representative Government , ed. A.D. Lindsay, London: Dent, 1964.
• Miller, David, 1999, Principles of Social Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2013, Justice for Earthlings: essays in political philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Montague, Phillip, 1980, “Comparative and Non-Comparative Justice,” Philosophical Quarterly , 30: 131–40.
• Murphy, Liam, 1998, “Institutions and the Demands of Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27, 251–91.
• Nagel, Thomas, 2005, “The Problem of Global Justice,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 33, 113–47.
• Nozick, Robert, 1974, Anarchy, State and Utopia , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Nussbaum, Martha, 2006, Frontiers of Justice: disability, nationality, species membership , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Okin, Susan, 1989, Justice, Gender, and the Family , New York: Basic Books.
• Olsaretti, Serena (ed.), 2003, Justice and Desert , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Paul, Jeffrey (ed.), 1982, Reading Nozick : essays on Anarchy, State, and Utopia , Oxford: Blackwell.
• Perry, Stephen, 2000, “On the Relationship between Corrective and Distributive Justice,” in Oxford Essays in Jurisprudence, Fourth Series , edited by Jeremy Horder, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Raphael, D. D., 2001, Concepts of Justice , Oxford: Clarendon Press.
• Rawls, John, 1958, “Justice as Fairness,” Philosophical Review , 67: 164–94.
• –––, 1971, A Theory of Justice , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
• –––, 1999, A Theory of Justice , revised edition, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2001, Justice as Fairness: a restatement , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• Ripstein, Arthur, 2004, “The Division of Responsibility and the Law of Tort,” Fordham Law Review , 72: 1811–44.
• Sandel, Michael, 1982, Liberalism and the Limits of Justice , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Scanlon, T. M., 1998, What We Owe to Each Other , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
• –––, 2003, “The Diversity of Objections to Inequality,” in The Difficulty of Tolerance: essays in political philosophy , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sen, Amartya, 1980, “Equality of What?” in Tanner Lectures on Human Values, Volume 1 , ed. S. McMurrin, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
• Sidgwick, Henry, 1874/1907, The Methods of Ethics , London: Macmillan.
• Valentini, Laura, 2014, “Canine Justice: An Associative Account,” Political Studies , 62: 37–52.
• Walzer, Michael, 1983, Spheres of Justice: a defence of pluralism and equality , New York: Basic Books.
• Williams, Andrew, 1998, “Incentives, Inequality, and Publicity,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27: 225–47.
• Wolff, Jonathan, 1991, Robert Nozick : property, justice and the minimal state , Cambridge: Polity.
• –––, 1998, “Fairness, Respect and the Egalitarian Ethos,” Philosophy and Public Affairs , 27: 97–122.
• Young, Iris Marion, 2011, Responsibility for Justice , New York: Oxford University Press.

How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

• Justice , course lectures by Michael Sandel
• Justice Everywhere , a group blog about justice in public affairs

Aristotle, General Topics: ethics | consequentialism | consequentialism: rule | contractualism | feminist philosophy, topics: perspectives on reproduction and the family | justice: as a virtue | justice: distributive | justice: global | justice: intergenerational | justice: international distributive | justice: retributive | justice: transitional | luck: justice and bad luck | Rawls, John | reflective equilibrium | social contract: contemporary approaches to

Copyright © 2021 by David Miller < david . miller @ nuffield . ox . ac . uk >

• Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

• Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

What ‘Justice’ Really Means

The word has taken a beating in the past few weeks. But what role does it truly play in our lives?

By Paul Bloomfield

Mr. Bloomfield is a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut.

It’s a staple of common sense that we don’t let judges try their own cases. Yet if we are to gain self-knowledge, we all must do just that: We must judge ourselves to know ourselves. While we typically think of justice as a virtue of social arrangements or political institutions, the United States has recently bore witness to this virtue in its first-person aspect — self-regarding justice — while watching the confirmation hearings of a Supreme Court Justice.

The virtue of justice requires not only that we judge others fairly, but also that we judge ourselves fairly. This is no mean feat. The trouble is that if a person is a poor judge of him or herself, it is hard to imagine that person being a good judge of others. Bias toward the self often leads to bias against others. Justice begins within ourselves.

While justice is important for each of us in our personal lives, it becomes strikingly important when we think of those in positions of power. We need leaders motivated by a love of justice and not merely self-aggrandizement. Leadership without an inner moral compass reliably pointing toward justice inevitably ends in the abuse of power.

Philosophically, all virtues are ideals that we can only approach without fully attaining them. So, we can always aspire to do better. Given this, what role does the virtue of justice play in our personal lives? What role ought it to play?

In fact there are two roles: Justice functions both in our epistemology, or how we form and justify our beliefs, as well as in practical morality, informing our private and public behavior. These ought to be entwined in our lives since we ought not only think in a fair and just manner but also act accordingly.

The apotheosis of justice is the courtroom judge, interpreting the law and ruling on evidence concerning innocence and guilt. Model judges are epistemically just: Their cognitive processes are never biased or unduly swayed, their conclusions are not prejudged, and their verdicts reliably correspond to the facts. Truth is their goal. Not only must there be no thumb on the scale, the evidence must be balanced while wearing a blindfold. The rulings of judges, however, are also undeniably moral, bearing as they do on issues of justice, restitution and the execution of punishment.

Just people are wise in the ways of fairness, equality, desert and mercy. They are normally pacific. Just people mind their own business, except when they see and call out injustice, speaking truth to power, which they’ll do even at a personal cost. Justice questions authority.

Just people also question themselves. This makes them honest and non-self-deceptive. They vigilantly maintain a clear conscience. Just people are cognizant of their own mistakes and faults, and so they are forgiving of others. They respect who they actually are and not whom they merely wish they were, and their authentic self-respect makes them respectful of others. People who are just do as they say and say as they do: their word is their bond. They are capable of great loyalty and fidelity, but not without limit.

The central epistemic principles of justice require like cases to be treated alike, as captured legally by the concepts of the rule of law and precedent . Weak and strong, rich and poor, all are equal before the law (where this must include the Supreme Court justices and presidents of the United States). While applying general principles alone is sufficient for clear, ordinary cases, a fine sensitivity, experience and reflection is necessary for reliably judging unusual or exceptional cases. Well-developed justice requires expertise in making hard “judgment calls.”

The central moral principles of justice require us to give proper respect to one another : Each of us must recognize the other as a person and not merely as an object. Each of us may testify. The least common denominator among us is that we are all human beings. In addition to that, we each have particular features making us all unique. Justice pays proper attention to what we have in common and to what sets us apart.

In discussing justice as a personal virtue, Aristotle said that being just, “ is a mean between committing injustice and suffering it, since the one is having more than one’s share, while the other is having less .” As recklessness and cowardice are opposing vices of courage, arrogance and servility are opposing vices of justice.

From sidewalk sexual harassment to the obstruction of justice, all abuses of power involve an unjust willingness to greedily arrogate more than one’s due. Typically, those who abuse their strength or cheat, and then don’t get caught or punished, self-deceptively think they’ve “beaten the system” and “won.” But fooling others into thinking you have earned a victory is not the same as genuinely being victorious. Cheaters fool themselves when they elide this difference.

The other way to fail justice is by judging ourselves to be less worthy than we truly are. This is sadly common among oppressed people, but it also arises among the affluent and powerful under the guise of the “impostor syndrome.” Humility has its place, but we shouldn’t overdo it, nor let it interfere with the intellectual courage required to call out injustice. Those who unfairly put themselves down or are servile, for whatever reason, are doing themselves an injustice by willfully accepting less than their fair share.

Given all this, the virtue of justice plays an important role in families and friendships, between neighbors and citizens, colleagues and clients, acquaintances and strangers. But it is also central to being a good person and living happily, and not merely deceiving oneself into believing that one is a good person and that one is happy.

Bringing justice fully into our lives, thinking in terms of it, will make us more circumspect. We are all too fallible. But it is often the case that we are much better at spotting the faults of others than we are at spotting faults in ourselves. Our blind spots are conveniently located to keep us from seeing our own weaknesses. What a coincidence!

Life is neither just nor fair: Good things happen to bad people and bad things happen to good people. This, however, only increases our obligation to be as just and fair as we can be, to be honest with ourselves as well as others, to try to correct injustice when we see it, and to do as much right in this unfair world as we can.

Paul Bloomfield is a professor of philosophy at the University of Connecticut and the author of “ The Virtues of Happiness .”

Now in print : “ Modern Ethics in 77 Arguments ,” and “ The Stone Reader: Modern Philosophy in 133 Arguments ,” with essays from the series, edited by Peter Catapano and Simon Critchley, published by Liveright Books.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook and Twitter .

47 pages • 1 hour read

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapters 2-4

Chapters 5-7

Chapters 8-10

Key Figures

Important Quotes

Essay Topics

Discussion Questions

In Chapter 1, Sandel divides theories of justice into three categories: (1) “maximizing welfare,” (2) “respecting freedom,” and (3) “promoting virtue” (5-6, 18).Does the rest of the book give equal treatment to all three theories, or are some better developed than others? Do these three categories encompass all of the major approaches to justice discussed in the book? If so, how do those approaches fit into each of these three categories?

Sandel illustrates competing views of justice throughout the book using both (1) hypothetical scenarios and (2) actual moral dilemmas arising from current and historical events. Why would Sandel use both? Is one or the other more effective to illustrate his points? If so, why?

In 2012, President Obama famously said “you didn’t build that” in a speech in which he argued that successful businesses owe their success partly to public infrastructure. What view of redistribution of income does this reflect? How would a libertarian respond to that argument? Would Rawls agree or disagree with Obama’s statement?

Don't Miss Out!

Access Study Guide Now

Related Titles

By Michael J. Sandel

The Tyranny of Merit: What’s Become of the Common Good?

Michael J. Sandel

What Money Can’t Buy: The Moral Limits of Markets

Featured Collections

Politics & Government

View Collection

396 Justice Essay Topics

🏆 best essay topics on justice, ✍️ justice essay topics for college, 👍 good justice research topics & essay examples, 🌶️ hot justice ideas to write about, 📌 easy justice essay topics, 💡 simple justice essay ideas, 🎓 most interesting justice research titles.

• Punishment vs. Rehabilitation Within the Criminal Justice System
• Mercy vs. Justice in Shakespeare’s “The Merchant of Venice”
• Justice and Morality in “Things Fall Apart” by Chinua Achebe
• Rhetorical Strategies in Mobley’s “Justice or Murder?”
• Use of Statistics in Criminal Justice and Criminology
• Hesiod’s Idea of Justice Based on His Works
• The Case of Justice Through Revenge in Murder on the Orient Express
• “The Need for More Than Justice” by Baier: Key Concepts “The Need for More Than Justice” distinguishes between Rawls’s and Kantian justice perspectives and the care position that Gilligan outlined in her studies.
• Justice Miscarriage in “The Shawshank Redemption” Film A major theme depicted in “The Shawshank Redemption” film is the inherent failure of the criminal justice system which creates conditions for the miscarriage of justice.
• Restorative Justice and Traditional Criminal System This essay analyzes the extent to which developments in restorative justice practices are for the benefit of victims and is a usefull alternative to our traditional criminal justice system.
• Characteristics and Aims of the Criminal Justice System According to a study done by researcher Herbert packer from Stanford University, there are two prime models that represent two systems.
• Organizational Behavior in a Criminal Justice Agency Essay seeks to provide a general insight into the issue of Organizational Behavior in a criminal justice agency such as the police department.
• Ethical Issues in the Criminal Justice System Criminal justice practitioners and organizations face various ethical issues in the contemporary world, for example, excessive force.
• Theories in Ethics and Criminal Justice The distinction between superior cognitive and lower physiological sensations is the first defining aspect of Mill’s utilitarianism.
• Variance Analysis in Criminal Justice and Criminology The paper states that there are several limitations associated with the ANOVA technique. It may be not suitable against a specific hypothesis.
• Leadership and Management in Criminal Justice Understanding why leadership and management are helpful in the judiciary and law enforcement will go a long way to streamlining the criminal offices.
• Research Methods in Criminal Justice & Security Since various criminological research methods require subjects to participate, sometimes the use of deceptions are inevitable.
• Prison Reform in the US Criminal Justice System Prison reform should be implemented by ensuring public safety and improving the circumstances of incarceration to create a constructive culture.
• The Theme of Justice in the Old and the New Testament Following Fitzmyer’s approach, one can identify the sources of justice through the exploration of the issues that were judged in two Testaments.
• Conflict Between Friendship and Justice I was angry with my friend Omar because he openly discriminated against other people in my presence. He was especially skeptical about homosexual people.
• The History of the Criminal Justice System The criminal justice system (CJS) was developed to oversee the rationalization of hanging to the British citizens.
• Justice and Morality in Coetzee’s “Waiting for the Barbarians” Coetzee, in his Waiting for the Barbarians, discusses controversial aspects in the form of the opposition between two characters of the novel, the Magistrate and Colonel Joll.
• Victimization in the Criminal Justice System The paper states that knowing victimology is key since it highlights various issues that may be used in the criminal justice system, such as retaliation.
• Hardware and Software Systems and Criminal Justice One of the main technologies used to reduce the risk of criminal activity is crime mapping, which includes collecting data on criminal incidents and assessing it to detect problems.
• The Pros and Cons of Restorative Justice Model Restorative justice is a strong model of justice due to its look on crime in the social context and involving those affected and the general public.
• Restorative Justice as an Approach to Justice Restorative justice is a promising approach to criminal intervention that brings significant benefits in the cases where it can be applied.
• Evaluation of the Meaning and Impact of Globalization in Relation to Criminal Justice The globalization process has a significant impact on criminal justice. Globalization has led to increased interdependence among various economies.
• Theories and Hypothesis of Criminal Justice The four commonly used theories of research include deductive, inductive, grounded, and axiomatic research theories.
• Criminal Justice System and Component Interrelations Criminal actions may have a destructive impact on various aspects of society. The criminal justice system is designed in order to control crime through a number of techniques.
• An Ideal Society: Justice, Peace, and Security In this article, the author presents his model of an ideal society which possesses key features such as equality and justice, peace, and economic security.
• Procedural and Distributive Justice in the Workplace In any system, procedural and distributive justice are complementary to each other, meaning that they work together to ensure equal treatment in different areas of human activity.
• Criminal Justice Policy and Constitutional Protections Criminal justice policies are always a delicate balance between personal liberty and the desire to reduce crime.
• “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?” by Sandel In the book “Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do?”, professor Michael Sandel explores a range of political philosophies, which range from Aristotle to Kant to John Rawls.
• Bibliography on Criminal Justice The suggested bibliography demonstrates characteristics embedded in the criminal justice system concerning society.
• Criminal Justice Leadership: Challenges in the Present and Improving for the Future Future research in criminal justice leadership will have to offer suggestions on how it can be nurtured to fulfill the organizational goals of criminal justice organizations.
• Social Justice in Nursing Practice Social justice plays an instrumental role in nursing by ensuring that inequalities do not deprive marginalized groups of access to quality healthcare services.
• Constitutional Rights in Criminal Justice The American Constitution outlines the rights of all citizens. Some unique rights are also available to those in criminal justice systems.
• What Is More Important – Love or Justice? The paper states that love and justice are the two concepts that form the basis of ethical and moral principles. They cannot exist without each other.
• Poverty, Faith, and Justice: ”Liberating God of Life” by Elizabeth Johnson “Liberating God of Life Context: Wretched Poverty” by Johnson constructs that the main goal of human beings is to combat structural violence toward the poor.
• Women in the UK Criminal Justice System The analysis of women in the UK criminal justice system disclosed the attitude to females in criminology perceiving them as workers, offenders and victims.
• Criminal Justice Policy in England and Wales The England and Wales criminal justice system (CJS) is a ministerial department under the Ministry of Justice, which oversees the administration of justice in the country.
• Mass Media and Its Link to Crime and the Criminal Justice System In this study, the official website America’s Most Wanted will be analyzed to get a better understanding as to why it is so successful as a TV show and as a tool to fight crime.
• Ancient Mayan and the Modern Criminal Justice Systems The laws of the ancient peoples like Maya were rather cruel since human life was not recognized as the highest value, as is the case in our time.
• The Importance of Criminal Justice Practitioners This essay will explore the role of these practitioners in serving both the individual and societal needs of those they are bound to protect.
• The Social Justice Concept Definition In this article, it is argued that the concept of social justice represents entanglements between policy arenas of social welfare and crime control.
• Justice in “The Republic” by Plato In the work “The Republic”, Plato’s strategy entails explicating the primary notion of justice, political or societal, and deriving a comparable idea of justice.
• Economic Justice and Ways of Achieving It This paper will discuss how the government should guarantee all citizens an income drawn from the taxes it collects. The income should be regardless of input and work success.
• Critical Thinking: Dignity and Justice The critical analysis of the works of Pope Paul IV showed the connection between the notion of human dignity and the common good based on justice.
• Criminal Justice Systems This study explores investigations of offenses and arrests of suspects both of which are executed by the police who are the law enforcers in collaboration with the defense and the attorney.
• Feminism and Criminology in the Modern Justice System Feminist research is a promising method for studying the psychography of crime, motivation, and the introduction of women’s experience in the field of forensic science.
• Criminology and Victimology: Victim Stereotypes in Criminal Justice The paper shall look at this matter in relation to female perpetrated violence as well as male experiences of sexual violence and racial minority victims.
• Concepts of Law Enforcement: Pursuing Criminal Justice Law enforcement plays a vital role in ensuring that all offenders receive proper punishment and victims receive justice.
• The Concept of Social Justice in Nursing Social justice in nursing relates to human rights and equality in the nursing practice and addresses inequalities arising from race, gender, age, religion, etc.
• Analysis of “The Little Book of Restorative Justice” In the book, Howard discusses specific features of the current criminal justice system and its impact on individuals and society as a whole.
• The George Floyd Case in the Criminal Justice System This paper provides an annotated bibliography for a paper detailing the particularities of the George Floyd case in the American criminal justice system.
• Restorative Justice in the United Kingdom System Restorative justice seeks to explore amicable ways of dealing with crime. This justice was provided for in the Crime and Disorder Act.
• Criminal Justice Professionals and the Declaration of Independence This essay shall focus on the circumstances that preceded these documents, their adoption, and what all criminal justice professionals should know about the preparation.
• Deontological Ethics in Criminal Justice Deontological ethics gives very clear guidelines for a person as to the morality of his/her actions and it gives no room for the justification of one’s immoral actions.
• Risk Management in Security and Criminal Justice As it is a process, risk management can draw up several strategies that may vary depending on the nature of the organization, including management style and organizational goals.
• Gender Equity and Social Justice in Schoolchildren Gender inequality can easily be identified in schools by observing how students tend to micro-interact and aggregate in particular activities or groups.
• The Poem “In Justice!” The poem ‘‘In Just’’ is pieced together and deciphered based on love and deliberately visualizes the external world in portraying its intended message.
• Ethics and Social Justice in Mental Health System Ethics and social justice play crucial roles in the mental health system and should be upheld to ensure a safe society for all.
• The Environment and Social Justice Reflecting on the pollution in the heart of corporate districts where there is neglect of the people, one appreciates the built environment’s impact on the quality of life.
• The Dominican Republic’s Criminal Justice System The Dominican Republic’s criminal justice model fits the country’s social patterns and available resources but has demonstrated the need for much improvement.
• Justice and Injustice in Plato’s Philosophy The present essay disagrees with the idea proclaimed by Plato and argues that his vision of the problem of justice and injustice is idealized and is not adapted to reality.
• Intersection of Disability Justice, Race, and Gender This paper presents an annotated bibliography on the intersection of disability justice, race, and gender, analyzing intersections of disability justice.
• Nike’s Cause Marketing. Justice Communication A cause-related marketing campaign is a campaign in which a company aligns itself with a good cause to improve its reputation.
• Virtue Ethics, Ethical Egoism, and Rawlsian Theory to the Criminal Justice System Virtue ethics involves happiness that is associated with the quality of life of an individual. In this context, the emphasis is on virtues and vices.
• The Significance of Police Discretion to the Criminal Justice System This paper is an investigation into the meaning of police discretion. It highlights the benefits of police discretion to the role of the police department.
• Issue of Social Equity in Public Administration and Criminal Justice The concept of social equity in public administration is based on race and gender issues in terms of employment, democratic participation, and service delivery.
• The Criminal Justice System: Brandon Bledsoe Case Brandon Bledsoe’s arrest provides valuable information about the U.S criminal justice system, and it showcases all criminal justice system procedures concerning murder and arson.
• Racial Disparity in Criminal Justice Systems This paper looks into issues to do with racial disparity in incarceration, criminal justice systems and, structured inequalities and, a recommendation for correcting the situation.
• Ethic-of-Care and Ethic-of-Justice in Nursing Leadership Ethical dilemmas in nursing practice are common, and they can be addressed according to ethic-of-care and ethic-of-justice perspectives.
• Procedural and Distributive Justice Procedural justice and distributive justice are two types that are closely interconnected even though they deal with different aspects of social structure.
• Revenge as a Form of Ensuring Justice Revenge is an action that involves harming someone in return for being harmed by them. Usually, all people can feel this urge to punish somebody for the actions they did.
• Gun Violence as the Social Justice Issue The aim of the paper is to describe the issue of gun violence, analyze the reasons for the problem and propose a possible solution.
• Justice as Prevailing Theme in Dante’s “Inferno” “Inferno’s” content suggests that Dante relies on the concept of justice, and not mercy or forgiveness, as the key theme and message of the poem.
• Utilitarian and Libertarian Approaches to Justice The concept of justice is complicated and nebulous, and its exact nature has been the subject of numerous debates throughout millennia.
• Chapter 7 of Statistics for Criminology and Criminal Justice Chapter 7 of Statistics for Criminology and Criminal Justice analyzes populations, sampling distributions, and the sample related to criminal-justice statistics and criminology.
• The Use of Statistics in Criminal Justice and Criminology This paper discusses small-sample confidence intervals for means and confidence intervals with proportions and percentages in criminal justice and criminology.
• Recruitment and Training in the Criminal Justice Field During the hiring process, it is ethical to consider equality, while ensuring the workforce fit in the available positions skillfully.
• Criminal Justice Professionals: Role and Importance Criminal justice professionals address the needs of citizens guaranteeing that they perform their duties as expected by various populations.
• The Islamic Criminal Justice The Islamic law and jurisprudence are an integrated homogenous whole contrasting to the perspective of modern society.
• Juvenile Justice System Analysis The juvenile justice system needs reform since this institution’s activities are more often aimed at punishing minors than helping people who find themselves in difficult life situations.
• The Higher Education Institution: Organizational Justice The study considered the relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors of staff in higher education settings.
• “Kids Behind Bars”: Juvenile Justice System The video Kids Behind Bars addresses important questions regarding juvenile justice, the most important of which is the necessity of rehabilitating and reforming juvenile delinquents.
• Critical Incident Management in Criminal Justice Scenario-Based Planning is a widely used technique in the sphere of business planning and management. It is of great importance for police officers and criminal justice workers.
• Hobbes’s Reply to “There Is No Such Thing as Justice” The work of Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan” tells about different approaches to state power with the author’s personal points on it.
• Life Terms and Limits of the Supreme Court Justice The paper concludes that the life terms practice should not be changed as it is integral to the existing political system and corresponds with the purpose of the Supreme Court.
• Juvenile Justice System: A Madman’s Vacation According to the information presented in the episode, the purpose of the juvenile justice system is to help teenagers rehabilitate instead of punish them for their crimes.
• Crime Scene Investigation Effect in Justice System Movies have been known to influence popular culture in different parts of the world. Analysts believe that the “CSI effect” is one of the fruits of popular culture.
• Criminal Justice: Philosophies of Corrections This paper discusses the significance of the religious, mental health, and educational programs within the penal paradigm in the US, assessed through the lenses of philosophies of corrections.
• Administrative Justice in United States Principles of administrative law ensure that all government actions are legal and that the citizens affected by unlawful government acts have effective remedies.
• The Code of Ethics in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice The Texas Department of Criminal Justice adheres to an elaborate code of conduct and code of ethics. The paper analyzes the standards from various perspectives.
• Analysis of the Juvenile Justice System This article will explore the issues of delinquent-related causes, delinquency prevention, and the parallels between the prevention and treatment of juvenile offenders.
• Nozick vs. Rawls: Distributive Justice or Justice as Fairness Philosophers have suggested multiple theories that can be applied legislatively for different purposes depending on the societal aims that one seeks to address.
• Recidivism in the Criminal Justice The paper discusses the causes of relapse: lack of adapt to society, stagnation in the organization of prisoners’ society, and lack of attention to the mental health of criminals.
• Theories Regarding Criminal Justice Criminal justice involves aspects of establishing fair play for all parties involved. Decision-makers are presented with several theories.
• Indigenous Canadians in the Criminal Justice System The overrepresentation of Indigenous people in Canada’s criminal justice system continues to increase nowadays despite the efforts to address the problem.
• Pillars of Procedural Justice and Law Enforcement Reform Procedural justice is the idea of fairness and helps resolve disputes and the allocation of resources in the community.
• Criminal Justice Technology The authors of the article acknowledge that improvement in technology has been very critical in facilitating effective resources distribution in the criminal justice system.
• US Criminal Justice System’s Most Significant Problems Juvenile delinquencies of a serious nature are rising in the U.S. and deterrent or coercive punishments appear to have negative effects on recidivism.
• Role of Human Biology in Contemporary Criminal Justice Focus of analysis of the paper will be on theories developed to explain criminology with a special emphasis on Biological positivism theory
• Policing Style and Criminal Justice System Functioning Peaceful coexistence is a constituent of development in the community. A peaceful environment emanates from the application of various policing styles by relevant authorities.
• The History of Community Justice The history, characteristics, prospects for the future, and community justice outcomes as a new philosophy of criminal justice are explored in this paper.
• Attempted Bank Robbery Criminal Justice Case The suggested case describing the plan to commit a crime of bank robbery is characterized by several elements that are commonly identified in crime attempts.
• Juvenile Justice in Russia Some regions of the country took part in an experiment on the application of juvenile justice in practice. This experience revealed the following trends.
• Analysis of Professional Counseling and Social-Justice Perspective Political and social justice perspectives on counseling are closely intertwined since the latter includes imposing theories regarding political actions and engagement.
• Justice from the Standpoint of Thrasymachus The issues of justice and fair state organization attract politicians and philosophers’ attention throughout the years and generations.
• Community Policing Assignment: A History of Police Work in the Criminal Justice System Community policing led to the introduction of a system where the police officers and members of the community get a closer relationship.
• Criminal Justice System: Drugs and Crime The main objective of the criminal justice system is ensuring delivery of justice for all. It mainly concentrates in detection of crime.
• Criminal Justice Ethics: Police Corruption & Drug Sales The growth of police corruption instances involving drug sales is relatively easy to explain. The financial rewards offered by the sales of illegal drugs are enormous.
• Justice and Happiness in Plato’s “Republic” Plato’s Republic focuses on the discussion of the meaning of justice and explores a connection between the just man and his happiness.
• Review of “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls “A Theory of Justice” by John Rawls explores the connection between justice, fairness, and social justice in relation to the climate crisis and environmental justice.
• Justice, Diversity, and Consensus in the Film “12 Angry Men” In the film 12 Angry Men, a jury comprised of 12 men is attempting to determine the guilt of a defendant under reasonable doubt.
• Social Justice and Civil Rights Justice is guaranteed by the emergence of appropriate civil rights for various populations, which limits the freedom of others but makes life fairer for all.
• Restorative Justice in Preventing Juvenile Recidivism Restorative justice programs allow juveniles to internalize the consequences of their actions on the relationship between the offender, the community, and the victim.
• Flywheel and Doom Loop Principles in Criminal Justice Organizations The development process of any organization, both commercial and public, depends on management and the correct allocation of resources.
• Criminal and Social Justice Intersection: Annotated Bibliography The annotated bibliography of the sources where the criminal and social justice intersection relations are researched.
• Racial Discrimination as a Social Justice Issue Racial discrimination is more pronounced in other US regions than others, and that is why the respective states need to work harmoniously to avert social evil.
• Veterans in the Criminal Justice System There are links between military service and criminal behavior. Multiple offenses are not uncommon among veterans, and the lack of further support will have a detrimental effect.
• Police Misconduct in Criminal Justice Police misconduct is one of the issues involved in criminal justice, and there are various aspects and events entailing unconstitutional practices in law enforcement.
• Transgender Offenders in the Criminal Justice System The transgender population who are incarcerated often faces various unique challenges which expose them to vulnerabilities both physical and mental.
• Police Discretion: Criminal Justice While in the academy and for their period of training, police are particularly skilled on how to handle various situations that they will come across.
• Analysis of Justice in “The Oresteia” The nature of revenge is a central issue of the trilogy The Oresteia that’s why the essay evaluates the justice in the Oresteia and its extent in Aeschylus’ Eumenides.
• The History of Criminal Justice Systems Up to today, the criminal justice system has gone through notable developments due to the current technology being applied and the new systems being used.
• The US Juvenile Justice System The juvenile justice system was developed to specifically address the legal and judicial matters associated with minors below 18 years.
• Applications of the Models of Justice: Utilitarian Theory According to utilitarianism, a person must act in a way to create the best possible consequences of actions for all people.
• Due Process in Australian Criminal Justice System Due process is an important concept in the justice system. The right to the due process ensures that the government respects the legal rights of an individual as stipulated by law.
• Environmental Racism and Environmental Justice One should not tolerate that a certain percentage of city residents live in much worse environmental conditions than all others – it is necessary to modernize the industry.
• Juvenile Justice: Gangs and Delinquency This work aims to determine the reasons why young people join gangs and the behavioral characteristics of adolescents involved in such groups.
• The Criminal Justice Service Violations and Ethical Issues Many criminal justice staff members fail to conform to moral and legal norms and become involved in acts of criminal, civil, or ethical misconduct of different severity.
• Juvenile Justice. Parens Patriae Policy The parens patriae policy is highly connected to the modern U.S juvenile system. Juvenile justice is the field of criminal law applicable to young people.
• Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice For applying the provisions of Article 86 there must be proof that the accused had actual knowledge of the time and place where he was required to be present.
• A Community Based-Approach to Juvenile Justice The criminal justice system in the United States has been subject to criticism over the past several decades because of factors such as discrimination and unfair treatment of juvenile offenders.
• False Confession in the Criminal Justice System A false confession is a problem of the 21st century. The modern criminal system takes multiple steps to avoid problems and achieve positive results.
• Adidas Corporation’s Organizational Justice Organisations ought to observe organisational justice. This will create a culture of trust, identity and commitment to delivering excellence.
• Code of Hammurabi and Justice in Babylon Code of Hammurabi is one of the oldest sets of laws used in the Ancient Babylon. It is believed that Hammurabi created and enacted it.
• Somalia v. Kenya: International Court of Justice The case that will be analyzed is Somalia v. Kenya. It is one of the contentious cases heard by the International Court of Justice.
• Social Justice Protests Regarding Abortions This study aims to understand abortion rights and how they were significant in women’s equality. Roe v. Rode was a case that challenged the rule about abortion.
• Implicit Bias and the Crime Net in the Criminal Justice System An unequal distribution of cases against members of different ethnic groups characterizes the use of force by police officers against citizens in Canada.
• Creative Voices as Social Justice Advocates Poetic language presents information in a way that enables readers to relate the message to their personal experiences and make informed decisions.
• Organizational Culture in Criminal Justice Agencies The criminal justice system utilizes an organizational culture approach that emphasizes immutability, control, order, and stability.
• The Criminal Justice System’s Key Components The components of the criminal justice system are important since they make communities safe from any harm resulting from crime, exploitation by the rich, and the government.
• Justice Displayed in South African Township Courts In this paper, the tension between the values of human rights and the ideals of justice displayed in South African township courts is examined.
• The US Criminal Justice System: Industry Standards The US criminal justice system is guided by several industry standards. The ongoing sentencing reforms aim to improve the effectiveness of the criminal justice system.
• The Treatment of Juvenile Crimes in the Legal Justice System Juvenile crimes affect not only the person who commits the crime but also the social order. This paper supports the arguments for treating juveniles as adults.
• Social Justice, Education, and Critical Pedagogy Education plays a significant role in development. Praxis is the philosophical concept that allows learners to bring into action theories and ideas taught in class.
• Justice: Libertarianism and Utilitarianism Ethical values such as libertarianism and utilitarianism are among the significant philosophical views that influence rights, obligations, power, and riches.
• The “True Justice: Bryan Stevenson’s Fight for Equality” Documentary The documentary “True Justice: Bryan Stevenson’s Fight for Equality” tells about the inferiority of the judicial system in the United States.
• Environmental Justice Movement Many social activities have taken place throughout the history of humankind is named Environmental Justice Movement.
• Dealing With People With Mental Disorders in the Justice System Mental disorders may hinder people from controlling their behavior, which is why they can commit actions that lead them to enter the criminal justice system.
• Black Communities and Criminal Justice The conflict between black people and white officers has existed for a long time. The tension between black people and the criminal justice system exists for several reasons.
• The Criminal Justice: Strategies and Approaches Deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, and restraint are the four basic strategies used in the administration of criminal justice.
• Discussion: Symbiotic Justice in Taxation The first area of contention between these economists is the role that the government plays in the endeavor to ensure a smooth process of tax collection.
• Image of Criminal Justice Depicted in Media The different movies and shows depict criminal justice from different perspectives, that’s why work chosen for the analysis is the movie called “Taking Lives” and “Dexter”.
• Improving Justice System to Prevent Sexual Assault Improving justice systems to give proper punishments to the perpetrators of sexual assault will effectively reduce the cases of sexual assault.
• Corporate Social Responsibility & Justice in Business Corporate social responsibility is not a trend n the corporate world. Working for an organization that makes one feel safe makes one feel better.
• Aspects of Ethics of Duty and Justice The most convincing, objective, and reliable criticism of male moral theorizing is the concept that focuses on the ethics of duty and justice.
• Youth Programs: Youth Justice Program This paper examines Youth Justice Program and offers an alternate version of it, analyzing the ways in which the alternative meets specific needs.
• Civil Liability in Criminal Justice This paper defines what tort law is, the different types, the differences between tort and criminal law, and the type of liability apart from tort cases.
• Institutional Review Board: The Use of Statistics in Criminal Justice Institutional Review Board assessment aims to ensure that measures are undertaken to defend the rights and well-being of those participating as research subjects.
• Annette Baier’s “The Need for More than Justice” This paper discusses Annette Baier’s main idea in her work “The Need for More than Justice,” which emphasizes the importance of care over justice in building a better society.
• Philosophical Discussion of Justice by Rawls and Hobbes In their philosophical discussion of justice, Rawls and Hobbes adhered to different considerations, which informed their opposing definition of this concept.
• Justice and Policies Among the Law Enforcers In the police departments, the consent agreement concentrates on upholding justice and policies among the law enforcers.
• Engineering Ethics Education for Social Justice The incident at Morales is a case that provides the reader and the viewers with a moral problem that is arguably confronted at work and home.
• US Terrorism and Criminal Justice Decision Making Model Terrorism is a significant security and safety threat. The United States has experienced both domestic and international terrorist attacks.
• Legal Technology in Criminal Justice
• The Social Justice and Nutrition in a Family
• Researching of Concept of Justice
• The Right to the City and Spatial Justice
• The Theory of Transformative Justice
• The Animal Rights Movement for Justice
• The Juvenile Justice System in the United States
• Non-Inclusiveness of the Criminal Justice System
• Crime and Juvenile Delinquency Impact on Justice
• Justice Towards Local and Foreign Citizens
• Islamic Culture and Criminal Justice Professionals
• The Successes and Failures to Reform Punishment Under the Criminal Justice System
• Criminal Justice Decision-Making Model
• The Need for More Justice: Philosophical Issues
• The Conception of Justice in Plato’s “Republic”
• Choosing a Career in the Administration of Justice
• Rawls’s and Nozick’s Theories as Applied to Criminal Justice
• The African-American Battle for Justice
• The Criminal Justice Reform and Racial Issues
• Criminal Justice System and the Problem of Racism
• Criminal and Social Justice
• OVW Fiscal Year 2022 Justice for Families Program
• Individual Responsibilities on Definirion of Social Justice Issues
• General Definitions of Social Justice
• Criminal Justice Case: Types of Sentences, Probation, and Final Decision
• Justice in Continental Philosophy
• The Criminal Justice System: The Prison Industrial Complex
• Decision-Making in Criminal Justice
• Bipolar Disorder in the Criminal Justice System
• Psychopathy Research Influence on Western Criminal Justice System
• Scientific Inquiry and Criminal Justice Hypothesis
• Ethics in Criminal Justice Investigations
• John Rawls’s Justice-as-Fairness and Political Liberalism Theory
• Environmental Justice as Social Movement
• Recidivism in the Criminal Justice: Prison System of America
• Ethical Dilemmas in Criminal Justice System
• Discontinuity of Care in the Criminal Justice System
• Racial Inequities in Juvenile Justice System
• Deterrence and Truancy Theory in Justice
• Psychopathy in the Criminal Justice System
• Researching of Criminal Justice in America
• Fair Treatment of Both Genders and John Rawls’ Theory of Justice
• Social Justice and Barriers in Healthcare
• Environmental Justice Problems in the Global South
• Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Criminal Justice System
• The Criminal Justice System Should Not Only Punish Criminals Equally
• Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
• The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and Its Contribution to Social Justice
• The Principle of Social Justice in World Religions
• Housing, Profit, and Justice in California
• Environmental Justice Issues in Miami
• Discussion of Criminal Justice
• Colonial Reshaping of Criminal Justice in India
• Autonomy and Social Justice for African American and Latino Populations
• Criminal Justice, Race, and Ethnicity Questionnaire
• Work Processors Role in the Resources Allocation in the Juvenile Justice System
• Historical Controversies of Supreme Court Justice Selection
• Technology Application in Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice, Race, and Ethnicity Debates
• Biological and Psychological Trait Theories and the Criminal Justice System
• Disadvantage in American Criminal Justice System
• Criminal Law in India and Access to Justice
• Criminal Justice: Murder of Travis Alexander
• Organizational Justice and New Generation Employees
• Social Justice: American Arab, Jewish American, and Africans
• Power and Authority in Juvenile Justice Organizations
• Fairness in Australian Administration of Justice
• Statistics for Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Abstract Life Story Build upon Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor’s Biography
• Exploration of Social Justice Aspects
• Juvenile Justice and the Death Penalty
• Qualitative Health Research Ethics: Autonomy, Justice, and Beneficence
• Victimology and Traditional Justice System Alternatives
• The Climate of Social Justice, Racism, COVID-19, and Other Issues
• Justice Research in the News Analysis
• Management of Criminal Justice Agencies
• Advocating for Social Justice
• Social Justice in Britain’s Workforce
• Impacts of Environmental Justice on Health
• Effective Writing and Criminal Justice
• Justice in Ancient Greece: The Liberation Bearers
• Case Processing Time in Criminal Justice System
• Aspects of Criminal Justice System
• The Importance of Community Relationships in the Administration of a Criminal Justice Organization
• Public Corruption in the Field of Criminal Justice
• Working for Social Justice
• Environmental Justice Framework and Racism
• The Justice System and the Importance of Understanding
• Technology Impact Criminal Justice Administration
• Criminal Justice System for Public Safety
• American Criminal Justice System: Prison Reform
• Accepted Functions of the US Criminal Justice System
• Criminal Justice System: Juvenile Correction
• Criminal Justice System in America
• Female Genital Cutting and Social Justice
• Juvenile Justice: Case of Jim Butler
• The Development of Juvenile Justice
• “Outgrowing Juvenile Justice” by Michael Jonas
• The Evolution of the Goals of the Justice System
• Changes Expected in the Field of Criminal Justice
• Research Proposal on Justice in Health Care
• Racial Justice Issues Analysis
• Criminal Justice System and Race in Documentary “13”
• How the Criminal Justice Agencies Reactes to Plight as a Victim
• International Criminal Justice Future Trends
• The U.S. Juvenile Justice System
• Cycle of Juvenile Justice: a Way to Break It
• Criminal Justice Process for a Felony Criminal Charge
• The Failures of the Current Juvenile Justice System
• Ethical and Justice Considerations of Triage of Critical Care Resources
• Criminal Justice in Texas: Todd Willingham and Death Penalty
• Federal Bureau of Investigation: Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice: Coerced Confessions
• The American Criminal Justice System
• Criminal Justice System: Fairness and Reforms
• Regulatory Criminal Laws and Criminal Justice System
• Restorative Justice: Principle
• Professional Responsibility in the US Department of Justice
• The Juvenile Justice System of the US: Blended Sentences
• S. Kruzan and C. Brown’s Experience in Criminal Justice System
• Criminal Justice Authority Evaluation
• Juvenile Justice in Passaic, New Jersey
• Systemic Racism and the American Justice System
• Juvenile Justice System Reform Involving Families
• Social Justice and Sustainable Business Practices
• Balance in the Administration of Justice and Security
• Computers and Criminal Justice
• What Lies Ahead for Juvenile Justice: Supportive School Discipline
• Impact of Sentencing Guidelines on the Criminal Justice System
• Principles of Restorative Justice
• Concepts of Justice in Relation to Modern American Society
• Statutory Authority and Responsibilities of Justice
• Compensatory Justice Effectiveness in Modern Legal System
• Justice Models and Their Differing Views on Punishment
• Mental Health Status in Juvenile Justice Settings
• American Criminal Justice: Due Process
• Racism, Crime and Justice and Growing-Up Bad
• The Need for Criminal Justice practitioners
• Juvenile Justice: Annotated Bibliography, Evaluation of the Research Methods
• Plea Bargaining: Justice or Injustice
• The Basis of Distributive Justice
• Institutional Racism Mitigation in Criminal Justice, Education, and Health Systems
• Organizational Justice Effect on Organizational Citizenship Behavior
• Current Corrections in the Criminal Justice System and Crime Control
• U.S. Justice System and Policing
• Criminal Justice at the Federal Level
• Aspects of Culture in Criminal Justice
• “Kids Behind Bars”: The Need to Reform the Juvenile Justice System
• Access and Relevance of Data Sources CDC to the Criminal Justice System
• The Problem of Inequality of Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice and Its History in America
• The United States Criminal Justice System
• Ray’s “The Secret in Their Eyes”: Morality, Justice, and Love
• Political Science Today. Constitutions, Law and Justice
• The US Criminal Justice Assignment
• Racism v Justice. “The New Jim Crow” by M. Alexander
• The Black Lives Matter Movement as the Call for Social Justice: Analyzing Available Sources of Information
• The Guiding Principles of Restorative Justice
• Crime Rates in the US and Its Link to the Juvenile Justice System
• The Relations Between Drug Abuse and Criminal Justice
• American Policing and Social Justice
• Catholic Moral Teaching on Charity and Social Justice
• False Confessions in the US Criminal Justice System
• The Justice for Socrates: The Influence on the Development of the Philosophy
• Relation Between Forgiveness and Justice
• Social Justice to Maintain Democracy in Australia
• Procedural Justice in Contacts with The Police Analysis
• Thurgood Marshall and His Supreme Court Justice
• Racial, Cultural and Educational Justice: Educator View
• Rehabilitating Juveniles Within the Juvenile Justice System
• Reconciliation, Australian Aborigines, and Social Justice
• Narrative for Advancing a Social Justice Agenda
• Criminal Justice in America and Its Components
• Research Environmental Discrimination and Environmental Justice
• Balance in the Administration of Justice Security
• The Role of the Criminal Justice Administrator
• UK National Health Service and Criminal Justice Approaches
• Organization Behavior Within a Criminal Justice Setting
• Crime and Justice by Curie
• Criminal Justice Ethics Analysis
• Criminal Justice Sphere Consulting
• Pursuing Criminal Justice Through Effective Organizational Behavior
• Criminal Justice and Crime Control in the US
• Socrates in Phaedo: Equality and Justice
• Rawls vs. Nozick on Social Problems and Criminal Justice
• Anil’s Ghost: Implications of Fiction on Justice
• The Justice in Megan’s Law Review
• Reproductive Success and Distributive Justice
• Criminal Justice System: Concepts and Practice
• Criminal Justice Security: Victimization in the US
• Procedural Justice: External & Internal Principles
• Juvenile Justice Program in the United States
• Support for Balanced Juvenile Justice
• ACLU and Institute of Justice
• Nazism: Power, Order, and Justice
• Wrongly Convicted: Why Doesn’t Lady Justice Open Her Eyes
• Pretrial Procedures in the Criminal Justice System
• Plea-Bargaining Law Impact on Criminal Justice
• Economic Justice: LGBTQ Individuals
• Restorative Justice for Juvenile Delinquents in Canada
• Procedures in the Justice System
• Political Philosophy: Natural Law and Justice
• Juvenile Justice and Adolescent Brain Development
• Teacher’s Reflection, Liberal Arts and Social Justice
• Juvenile Justice and Punishment Specifics
• Equal Justice Initiative Organization’s Operational Effectiveness
• School-to-Prison Pipeline in American Justice
• Ethic-of-Care and Ethic-of-Justice in Healthcare
• Professional Ethics in Criminal Justice: Singleton vs Norris
• Rethinking Justice: Emergency Management
• Racial Bias in Criminal Justice Systems and Workplaces
• Death Penalty Trends in American Justice System
• Confessions in Saudi vs US Criminal Justice Systems
• Public Defenders and the American Justice System
• Social Justice and Books: Educational Aspects
• Getting Involved in Advocacy Practice for Social Justice
• The Justice System: Confessions and Interrogations Protection
• The Supreme Court Justice Warren Earl Burger’ Biography
• Current Views of Juvenile Justice System
• Criminal Justice Process: Felony Criminal Charge
• Social Justice and Pregnant Addicted Mothers
• Justice System: Due Process of Law
• Supreme Court Justice: Homosexual Marriages
• Social Justice and Equality in America
• Humanities and Justice in Britain during 18th Century

Cite this post

• Chicago (N-B)
• Chicago (A-D)

StudyCorgi. (2021, September 9). 396 Justice Essay Topics. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/justice-essay-topics/

"396 Justice Essay Topics." StudyCorgi , 9 Sept. 2021, studycorgi.com/ideas/justice-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . (2021) '396 Justice Essay Topics'. 9 September.

1. StudyCorgi . "396 Justice Essay Topics." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/justice-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

StudyCorgi . "396 Justice Essay Topics." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/justice-essay-topics/.

StudyCorgi . 2021. "396 Justice Essay Topics." September 9, 2021. https://studycorgi.com/ideas/justice-essay-topics/.

These essay examples and topics on Justice were carefully selected by the StudyCorgi editorial team. They meet our highest standards in terms of grammar, punctuation, style, and fact accuracy. Please ensure you properly reference the materials if you’re using them to write your assignment.

This essay topic collection was updated on January 8, 2024 .

Justice And Revenge In Hamlet

Hamlet is one of Shakespeare’s most popular plays. The story revolves around Hamlet’s quest for revenge against his uncle, Claudius, who murdered Hamlet’s father in order to take the throne. Hamlet is a tragedy, and as such, it raises questions about the nature of revenge and justice.

On the one hand, Hamlet is motivated by a desire for revenge. He wants to kill Claudius in order to avenge his father’s death. This desire for revenge is what drives Hamlet to commit murder himself. On the other hand, Hamlet also feels that it is his duty to bring Claudius to justice. He wants to make sure that Claudius pays for his crime, and he does not want anyone else to suffer because of Claudius’s actions.

Hamlet is torn between these two impulses, and he struggles to decide what is the right thing to do. In the end, Hamlet chooses revenge over justice, and he kills Claudius. However, this choice comes at a great cost. Hamlet dies in the process, and his death brings about the downfall of Denmark.

So, what can we learn from Hamlet? Perhaps Shakespeare is trying to tell us that revenge is not always the best course of action. Or maybe he is trying to say that while revenge may be satisfying, it ultimately leads to more pain and suffering. Either way, Hamlet provides us with a complex portrait of the human condition, and raises important questions about the nature of justice and revenge.

Hamlet’s aims fluctuate between revenge and justice throughout the play, with this interior debate determining how events unfold. Revenge motivates Hamlet as his initial aim in his quest for vindication of his father’s death. Later, Hamlet’s torn sensibility and concern for justice are revealed in Soliloquy. Hamlet’s ability to act against Claudius is hampered as a result of this internal conflict. Only when Hamlet faces his own procrastination does inaction cease.

Hamlet swings towards his newfound realization that in order for justice to be carried out, Claudius’ wrongs must be righted through Hamlet’s own death. In the end, Hamlet chooses justice over revenge and both he and Claudius die.

Revenge is Hamlet’s dominant motive throughout much of the play. From the very beginning of the play, Hamlet is marked by his desire to avenge his father’s murder. Hamlet is unable to act on this feeling, however, because he is uncertain of Claudius’ guilt. Hamlet delay’s his revenge until he has absolute certainty that Claudius killed his father which leads him into a downward spiral as he attempts to Hamlet’s delay in revenge is caused by his uncertainty of Claudius’ guilt.

Hamlet’s soliloquies reveal his Hamlet’s thoughts and feelings to the audience, providing insight that would otherwise be unavailable. In Hamlet’s second soliloquy, Hamlet bemoans his inaction, cursing himself as a “dull and muddy-mettled rascal” (II.ii.560). Hamlet recognizes his own faults and weakness, yet he is still unable to take action against Claudius. Hamlet is again torn between his desire for revenge and his uncertainty of Claudius’ guilt, caught in a limbo between the two emotions.

However, Hamlet’s inaction is not simply caused by his uncertainty of Claudius’ guilt. Hamlet is also motivated by a desire for justice. Hamlet does not want to kill Claudius without just cause, as that would make Hamlet no better than a murderer himself. Hamlet wants Claudius to be punished for his crimes, but he also wants Claudius to suffer the same type of pain and anguish that he has been feeling since his father’s death.

Hamlet’s soliloquies make it clear that he is struggling with this internal conflict. In Hamlet’s fourth soliloquy, he contemplates suicide as a way to escape the pain and suffering that he has been experiencing. Hamlet is not sure whether death is the answer, but he recognizes that death may be preferable to the life that he is currently living. Hamlet is still motivated by his desire for revenge, but he is also motivated by his sense of justice.

Hamlet does not fully realize it until later in the play, but his desire for revenge and justice are actually two sides of the same coin. Hamlet wants Claudius to be punished for his crimes, and he wants Claudius to suffer as much as he has suffered.

Hamlet’s ultimate goal is to see that justice is done. Hamlet finally realizes this near the end of the play, when he decides to take action against Claudius even though he knows that it will lead to his own death. Hamlet’s decision to kill Claudius is motivated by his desire for justice, not revenge. Hamlet knows that he will die in the process, but he also knows that it is the only way to ensure that Claudius is punished for his crimes. Hamlet’s final act is one of justice, not revenge.

While Hamlet’s initial motivation is revenge, he eventually realizes that justice is more important. Hamlet’s journey from revenge to justice is a long and difficult one, but it is ultimately a successful one. Hamlet chooses to sacrifi ce himself in order to ensure that Claudius is punished for his crimes. In doing so, Hamlet ensures that justice is done. Hamlet’s story is a reminder that justice is more important than revenge.

Hamlet triumphs over his internal debate by combining opposed forces and justifying vengeance from the inside out. Hamlet’s will isn’t initially strong enough to act only on revenge. Even though Hamlet promised he would be “swift” and “sweep to my revenge,” he admits in the “rogue and peasant slave” soliloquy that he has been “unpregnant of my cause.” It is not until Hamlet grows weary of his own passivity that he begins to question Claudius’ culpability.

Hamlet’s procrastination is due to his conscience, which reminds Hamlet that murder is a sin. Hamlet must find a way to take revenge without becoming a sinner himself. Hamlet then decides that it is better to kill Claudius in public and suffer the consequences than to privately damning Claudius, who would go unpunished in the eyes of God.

Hamlet also justifies taking revenge as a form of justice as he believes that Claudius deserves to die for murdering Hamlet’s father and marrying Hamlet’s mother. Hamlet’s internal struggle between doing what is morally right and satisfying his thirst for revenge ultimately leads him to commit murder.

Revenge is often seen as an act that is motivated by anger and hatred. Hamlet is no different as he wants to revenge his father’s murder. However, Hamlet is also motivated by a sense of justice as he believes that Claudius deserves to be punished for his crimes. Hamlet’s inner struggle culminates in him committing murder, which can be seen as both an act of revenge and an act of justice.

More Essays

• Revenge vs Justice Hamlet
• Revenge Is Not Justified Analysis Essay
• Hamlet Revenge Essay
• The play Hamlet
• Revenge And Vengeance In Hamlet By William Shakespeare Essay
• Hamlet Analysis Essay
• Is Hamlet A Tragic Hero
• Theme Of Death In Hamlet Research Paper
• What Is Hamlet’s Tragic Flaw?
• Hamlet Procrastinates The Murder Analysis Essay

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Essay on Justice

Every living thing has life. But the lives of humans are much different and advance as compared to other living things. However, the lives of humans are not that easy. The main thing that makes human life easy and peaceful is Justice. Justice is essential for maintaining a fair and equitable society and is an important part of human life.

On an individual level, justice ensures that everyone is treated fairly and has access to the same rights and privileges. To understand the necessity of justice, let us have a look at justice in detail.

Short and Long Justice Essay in English

Here, we are presenting long and short essays on Justice in English for students under word limits of 100 – 150 Words, 200 – 250 words, and 500 – 600 words. This topic is useful for students of classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12 in English. Also it will be helpful for students preparing for various competitive exams. These provided essays will help you to write effective essays, paragraphs, and speeches on Justice.

Justice Essay 10 Lines (100 – 120 Words)

1) Justice is a concept of fairness.

2) It ensures that people are treated equally.

3) Justice is considered to be the foundation of a secular society.

4) It is a fundamental right of every individual.

5) It is a complex concept that can often require difficult decisions.

6) Justice is an important part of a democratic country.

7) Justice should be encouraged in all areas of life.

8) It is a balance between rights and obligations.

9) Justice should work to resolve conflicts peacefully.

10) Justice should ensure that all people have access to equal opportunities.

Short Essay on Justice (250 – 300 Words)

Introduction

Justice is a concept of fairness that must be based on ethics, rationality, law, religion, and equality. It is a concept that upholds the equality of all people and treats everyone fairly.

Justice is not only an idea but an action that requires understanding the right and wrong of decisions to make sure everyone is treated fairly.

Advantages of Justice

Justice is essential for a healthy and functioning society. It is the foundation of democracy and laws. It is also essential for safeguarding individual rights and freedoms. It ensures that individuals are treated fairly and with respect, and that everyone has access to the same rights and privileges. People are afraid to commit crimes in a country where the law is followed. Additionally, justice offers voice to the weak and the impoverished, preventing the wealthy and powerful from taking advantage of them.

Disadvantages of Justice

One of the main disadvantages of justice is that it can be slow and inefficient. Additionally, with legal costs and court fees, people have to pay huge amount. Moreover, justice systems have been known to be biased against certain groups especially the powerful peoples, leading to unequal outcomes. Many people are afraid of the process of justice systems and end up losing their hope.

Justice is an essential element of a healthy society and is fundamental to the maintenance of a peaceful world. Justice should be applied equally to all people, regardless of their race, gender, or social class. Every citizen should follow law and promote equality to enjoy a healthy living.

Long Essay on Justice (500 Words)

“Justice” is not only a small word, it is a sentiment. For many people justice is not only their fundamental right but it is their need. It’s challenging to define what justice means. It has broad meaning varying from person to person. Justice should be seen as both a reward for doing good deeds and a means of punishing bad behavior.

What Is Justice?

Justice is the concept of treating all people with respect, regardless of social or economic status. When justice is applied, it ensures that individuals receive fair treatment and that their rights are protected. This includes access to resources and opportunities, as well as the right to a fair trial and equal protection under the law.

Types of Justice

There are three types of justice: retributive justice, restorative justice, and distributive justice. Retributive justice is the idea that those who commit wrongs should be punished as a way of getting revenge. While restorative justice is focused on repairing the harm caused by wrongdoing and restoring relationships between offenders and victims. Distributive justice is concerned with ensuring that resources are shared equally.

Importance of Justice

Justice is important for a number of reasons. It helps to maintain order in society and to ensure that laws are followed. Justice also helps to protect the rights of individuals and to ensure that people are treated same. It also helps to promote respect for the law and to create a sense of trust between citizens and the government. Justice is a cornerstone of democracy and is essential to the preservation of social order. Justice is an essential element of a healthy society.

The Black Side of Justice

Justice is an important part of society, but it has some disadvantages as well. Justice can be slow and expensive, as it often takes a long time for justice to be served. People may have to wait a long time for their case to go through the court system, and they may have to pay a lot of money for lawyers or court fees. Additionally, justice can be subjective, as judges and juries may interpret the law differently and come to different conclusions. This can lead to unfair results, which can be very frustrating and disappointing for involved.

How Justice can be maintained in society?

There are many ways through which justice can be maintained in a society. Some of them are listed below:

1. All citizens should follow by the laws, regardless of their social or economic status.

2. No one should be given special privileges or be discriminated on the basis of their race, gender, religion, or any other characteristic.

3. Everyone has basic human rights that should be respected by others.

4. People should be held accountable for their actions and any wrongdoings should be punished accordingly.

5. Governments and other institutions should be transparent about their decisions and actions.

Justice is an essential concept in a functioning society. It is a fundamental human right that should be respected and upheld by all nations. We must work together to create a fairer and more equal society.

I hope the above-provided essay on Justice will be helpful to you in understanding the advantages, disadvantages, and role of Justice in our society.

FAQs: Frequently Asked Questions on Justice

Ans. India celebrated 20 February every year as World Day of Social Justice.

Ans. Lady Justice is generally represented holding a set of scales in one hand, on which she balances the act and its effects in order to reach equilibrium and, thus, justice.

Ans. The justice system works by having two sides present their case to a judge or jury. Based on the evidence, the judge then makes a fair decision.

Ans. The role of the police in the justice system is to investigate crimes, gather evidence, and arrest the criminal.

Ans. As justice is impartial and shouldn’t be dependent on a person’s appearance or other external factors, the statue of justice is blindfolded.

Related Posts

Essay on digital india, cashless india essay, essay on child is father of the man, essay on causes, effects and prevention of corona virus, essay on dr. sarvepalli radhakrishnan, durga puja essay, essay on summer vacation, essay on my plans for summer vacation, essay on holiday.

• English Literature
• Short Stories
• Literary Terms
• Web Stories

Discuss the theme of justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird

Table of Contents

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:-Discuss the theme of justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird

Harper Lee’s acclaimed novel, “To Kill a Mockingbird,” explores the theme of justice through the lens of racial inequality and social injustice in the deep South of the 1930s. The story is narrated by Scout Finch, a young girl who witnesses the prejudice and discrimination prevalent in her community. 

Through the character of Atticus Finch, Scout’s father and a moral compass, the novel examines the complexities of justice and the challenges faced by those who strive to uphold it in an unjust society. 

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- This essay will delve into the theme of justice in “To Kill a Mockingbird,” analyzing the different manifestations of justice and the impact of injustice on individuals and communities.

1. The Ideal of Justice and Its Representation: “To Kill a Mockingbird” presents an idealized concept of justice, characterized by fairness, equality, and impartiality. Atticus Finch embodies these values, acting as a moral beacon and a staunch advocate for justice. 

Also Read:-

• Analyze the use of metaphor in T.S. Eliot’s The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock
• Discuss the theme of betrayal in Harold Pinter’s Betrayal
• Analyze the use of symbolism in James Joyce’s Araby

His defense of Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of rape, demonstrates his unwavering commitment to seeking truth and fairness. Atticus strives to expose the flaws in the justice system, challenging the prevailing racial prejudices that corrupt it.

2. Racial Injustice and Discrimination: The novel explicitly confronts the issue of racial injustice, highlighting the deep-seated racism that permeates Maycomb society. Tom Robinson’s trial serves as a microcosm of the racial inequality prevalent during that time. 

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- Despite overwhelming evidence of Tom’s innocence, the all-white jury convicts him, reflecting the systemic racism and the denial of justice based on skin color. This injustice not only affects Tom and his family but also exposes the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the town’s residents.

3. Inequality and Social Class: In addition to racial injustice, “To Kill a Mockingbird” explores the theme of justice in the context of social class. The novel reveals the stark disparities between the privileged and the marginalized members of society.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a MockingbirdThe Cunninghams and the Ewells, for instance, represent two contrasting social classes in Maycomb. The Ewells, despite their moral bankruptcy, are given preferential treatment due to their skin color, while the hardworking and principled Cunninghams are looked down upon.

The portrayal of these class divisions emphasizes the inherent injustice and inequality embedded in the society.

4. Moral Education and Empathy: The theme of justice is further developed through Scout’s moral education and her growing empathy for others. Initially, Scout views justice as a matter of right and wrong, based on rules and laws. 

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- However, through her interactions with individuals like Boo Radley and Tom Robinson, she learns to question societal norms and prejudices, gaining a deeper understanding of justice. Scout’s journey symbolizes the potential for growth and change in a society grappling with injustice.

5. Symbolism of the Mockingbird: The symbolism of the mockingbird is integral to the theme of justice in the novel. The mockingbird represents innocence, as it sings only to bring joy to others without causing harm. Atticus imparts the lesson that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird since they are defenseless creatures.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- This metaphor extends to Tom Robinson and Boo Radley, both figurative mockingbirds who face unjust persecution from society. Their innocence and vulnerability emphasize the tragedy of their situations and the injustice they endure.

To Kill a Mockingbird “Summary”

Harper Lee’s iconic book “To Kill a Mockingbird” was first released in 1960. The novel takes place in the fictitious Alabama town of Maycomb in the 1930s, a time marked by racial unrest and pervasive prejudice. Scout Finch, a young girl who narrates the novel, describes her impressions of her town and the happenings there.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- The focus of the narrative is on Scout, her older brother Jem, and their buddy Dill. The kids grow fascinated by Arthur “Boo” Radley, a recluse neighbour who is allegedly mentally ill and is kept inside by his family. They make up inventive games and stories about Boo while frequently attempting to see him.

The novel’s main plot is on a court case in which Scout and Jem’s father, Atticus Finch, is assigned to defend Tom Robinson, a black man who is charged with raping Mayella Ewell, a white lady. Despite the overwhelming evidence in favour of Tom, including his physical impairment, Atticus must contend with a deeply prejudiced society that will not entertain the idea that Tom might be innocent.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- Scout and Jem observe the stark reality of bigotry and injustice in their neighbourhood as the trial moves forward. They witness their father’s integrity and courage as he stands up for what is right in the face of hatred and danger. Readers see the complexities of racial relations and the innate defects of civilization through the eyes of the children.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- The unfortunate conviction of Tom Robinson in the trial’s verdict is distressing. After the trial, Bob Ewell, Mayella’s father, attacks Scout and Jem in retaliation. Boo Radley, who has been silently watching over and shielding the kids throughout the novel, steps in to save them from further damage. When Scout eventually meets Boo, she starts to think of him as a sweet and caring man.

The book “To Kill a Mockingbird” examines issues of racism, morality, innocence, and losing innocence. It exemplifies having the guts to stand up for what is right despite opposition from the wider community. Through Scout’s coming-of-age story, the book highlights the significance of understanding the hard realities of a sharply divided society.

When it comes to exploring the issue of justice in the midst of social injustice and racial inequality, Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” is a powerful author. The book asks the reader to consider the complexity of justice and how individuals should behave morally in a society that lacks fairness. The novel illustrates the battle for fairness, equality, and empathy in the face of ingrained prejudices via characters like Atticus Finch and Scout.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- Atticus Finch represents the idealised conception of justice by defending the truth and opposing the institutional racism that taints the legal system. 

The terrible reality of racial injustice and the denial of justice based on skin colour is shown by his defence of Tom Robinson. The trial provides as a powerful illustration of the ingrained prejudice and bigotry that characterised that era’s culture.

In addition, “To Kill a Mockingbird” explores the idea of justice beyond racial lines by tackling social class disparities and their repercussions on marginalised people. The obvious differences between those who are rich and those who are less fortunate draw attention to the fundamental inequality ingrained in Maycomb’s social structure.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- The tale stresses the value of challenging cultural conventions and prejudices through Scout’s moral education and developing empathy. It implies that pursuing justice calls for more than only abiding by the law and norms; rather, it necessitates a deeper comprehension of other people’s viewpoints and experiences.

The mockingbird’s symbolic meaning of vulnerability and innocence serves as a moving reminder of the agony of injustice. Characters like Boo Radley and Tom Robinson, two symbolic mockingbirds, go through unfair persecution, underscoring the detrimental effects of society preconceptions.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- Readers still find “To Kill a Mockingbird” to be a stirring examination of justice and its difficulties. The novel challenges our ideas of justice by addressing themes of racial inequality, social class differences, and moral development. It also inspires us to work towards a society that is more just and compassionate.

Harper Lee’s “To Kill a Mockingbird” presents a powerful exploration of the theme of justice in the face of racial inequality and social injustice. The novel challenges the reader to examine the complexities of justice and the moral responsibility of individuals in an unjust society. 

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- Through characters like Atticus Finch and Scout, the novel portrays the struggle for fairness, equality, and empathy in the face of deep-rooted prejudices.

Atticus Finch stands as a symbol of the idealized concept of justice, fighting for the truth and challenging the systemic racism that corrupts the justice system. His defense of Tom Robinson exposes the harsh reality of racial injustice and the denial of justice based on skin color. The trial serves as a poignant example of the inherent bias and discrimination that permeated the society of that time.

Theme justice in Harper Lee’s To Kill a Mockingbird:- Furthermore, “To Kill a Mockingbird” delves into the theme of justice beyond racial boundaries, addressing the inequalities of social class and the effects on marginalized individuals. The stark disparities between the privileged and the disadvantaged highlight the inherent injustice embedded in the social fabric of Maycomb.

Through Scout’s moral education and growing empathy, the novel emphasizes the importance of questioning societal norms and prejudices. It suggests that justice is not merely a matter of following rules and laws but also requires a deeper understanding of the experiences and perspectives of others.

The symbolism of the mockingbird, representing innocence and vulnerability, serves as a poignant reminder of the tragedy of injustice. Characters like Tom Robinson and Boo Radley, figurative mockingbirds, endure unjust persecution, highlighting the devastating impact of societal prejudices.

“To Kill a Mockingbird” continues to resonate with readers as a powerful exploration of justice and its challenges. By confronting the issues of racial inequality, social class divisions, and moral growth, the novel prompts us to reflect on our own notions of justice and to strive for a more equitable and empathetic society.

Q: What is the main theme of “To Kill a Mockingbird”?

Ans. The main theme of “To Kill a Mockingbird” is the exploration of justice, particularly in the context of racial inequality and social injustice. The novel delves into the complexities of seeking fairness, equality, and empathy in an unjust society.

Q: How does Harper Lee portray justice in the novel?

Ans. Harper Lee portrays justice in “To Kill a Mockingbird” through the character of Atticus Finch, who embodies the ideals of fairness, equality, and impartiality. Atticus’s defense of Tom Robinson, a black man falsely accused of rape, illustrates his unwavering commitment to seeking truth and challenging the prevailing racial prejudices that corrupt the justice system. 

Lee also highlights the injustices faced by marginalized individuals and the need for moral growth and empathy in order to achieve true justice.

Q: What role does racial injustice play in the novel?

Ans. Racial injustice plays a central role in “To Kill a Mockingbird.” The novel exposes the deep-seated racism and prejudice prevalent in Maycomb society during the 1930s. 

The trial of Tom Robinson, where an innocent black man is unjustly accused and convicted of rape, serves as a powerful example of the systemic racism and denial of justice based on skin color. Through this storyline, Lee sheds light on the devastating impact of racial injustice and the need to confront and challenge it.

Q: How does the symbolism of the mockingbird relate to the theme of justice?

Ans. The symbolism of the mockingbird is closely related to the theme of justice in the novel. The mockingbird represents innocence and harmlessness, as it only brings joy through its song and does not cause harm to others.

Atticus teaches his children that it is a sin to kill a mockingbird because they are defenseless creatures. This metaphor extends to characters like Tom Robinson and Boo Radley, who are figurative mockingbirds facing unjust persecution from society. Their innocence and vulnerability emphasize the tragic nature of injustice and the importance of protecting those who are defenseless.

Related Posts

The 48 Laws of Power Summary Chapterwise by Robert Greene

What is precisionism in literature, what is the samuel johnson prize.

Attempt a critical appreciation of The Triumph of Life by P.B. Shelley.

Consider The Garden by Andrew Marvell as a didactic poem.

Why does Plato want the artists to be kept away from the ideal state

MEG 05 LITERARY CRITICISM & THEORY Solved Assignment 2023-24

William Shakespeare Biography and Works

Discuss the theme of freedom in Frederick Douglass’ Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass

How does William Shakespeare use the concept of power in Richard III

Analyze the use of imagery in William Shakespeare’s sonnets

What is literature according to Terry Eagleton?

• Advertisement
• Privacy & Policy
• Other Links

© 2023 Literopedia

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Remember Me

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Are you sure want to unlock this post?

Are you sure want to cancel subscription.

Murder on the Orient Express

Agatha christie, everything you need for every book you read..

Crime in popular imagination, including mystery novels, generally centers on individual motivations and perpetrators: one person commits a crime out of greed, jealousy, anger, or a pure streak of evil, while another seeks to unravel the clues in order to “bring the criminal to justice”—to identify and capture the criminal so he or she can be judged and punished for his or her crimes. In Murder on the Orient Express , Agatha Christie complicates the story by starting it after traditional justice has already failed: the original criminal was acquitted on a technicality (and also bribed high-ranking officials). The crime that the detective Hercule Poirot investigates in the novel is actually an attempt to redress the failure of justice—the crime is an act of vigilantism. Such a “crime” offers Christie both a twist on the typical mystery novel, but also a way for Christie to investigate whether any act committed outside the traditional justice system can actually serve as justice.

Christie lays the groundwork for the novel’s investigation of justice by making clear that the victim of the murder, Ratchett , is himself guilty of an earlier monstrous crime. Ratchett’s guilt is established both through Poirot’s observations of his personality and descriptions of the scale and severity of his crime. Indeed, the novel suggests his evil character and guilt almost immediately. He’s described as a “bland philanthropist” but when his “gaze stopped on Poirot for a moment […] just for that second there was a strange malevolence.” The novel suggests he is in disguise, which in turn suggests his hidden guilt. Through its opening sections, the novel then reveals the terrible crime that Ratchett is accused of committing: Ratchett’s gang kidnapped Daisy Armstrong , a three-year-old girl, and then savagely murdered her while continuing to extort money from the family. Not only is Ratchett accused of this crime, he is definitively guilty of it. This is clear when Poirot himself, the novel’s singular source of truth and expertise, recalls that Ratchett was only “acquitted on some technical inaccuracy.”

In short, the novel establishes that the Ratchett deserves to be brought to justice that he has so far evaded. In contrast, the murder of Ratchett, committed by the other passengers of the Orient Express, shows that the certainty of guilt is just one precondition for justice. The passengers on the train also lay claim to justice by modeling their killing, at least roughly, on the ordinary proceedings of the justice system. They take pains to ensure that the people who sit in judgement over Ratchett are similar in both number, identity, and affect to the members of a jury. While revealing the results of the investigation, Poirot remarks, “A jury is composed of twelve people—there were twelve passengers—Ratchett was stabbed twelve times.” Later, Linda Arden, formerly Mrs. Hubbard , reveals that “ Colonel Arbuthnot was very keen on having twelve of us.” In other words, that there were twelve passengers who came together was no coincidence or accident. It was part of a concerted effort by to give the murder of Ratchett the appearance of justice. In addition, like a typical jury, the members of the conspiracy come from every conceivable background. The Russian Princess Dragomiroff held the knife along with Antonio the Italian chauffer and Hildegarde the German cook. The diversity of the murderers in terms of both national identity and class provides the sort of cross-section of America that Ratchett might have seen in those who would have judged him during a jury trial. Also, early on Poirot detects also that the crime was not one passion: “It is a crime that shows traces of a cool, resourceful, deliberate brain…” In fact, it was deliberately planned and staged over a long period of time. This satisfies another requirement of justice: that it be delivered with cool rationality, without emotion.

The ordinary course of justice works by socializing the responsibility for the punishment of the guilty—by spreading it out across multiple people. A jury composed of multiple people ensures that no one person shoulders too heavy a burden for sitting in judgement over another. When each member of the conspiracy personally stabs Ratchett, guilt is diffused in a similar way. This “spreading out” of the crime takes the act out of the realm of the personal to that of the collective, as punishment would function in a jury trial. Indeed, Linda Arden explicitly points to the idea that the twelve passengers are only an instrument of society when society’s aims had been frustrated: “Society had condemned him—we were only carrying out the sentence.” Even the weapon is chosen so every one of the conspirators, even the frail Princess Dragomiroff, can have their portion of both justice and guilt. The dagger, as Poirot says, “was a weapon that could be used by everyone—strong or weak.” Finally, the crime is structured so that no one perpetrator can be sure of delivering the killing blow. Because Ratchett is already drugged, “They themselves would never know which blow actually killed him.” This elevates the act to an impersonal judgement by society. Ratchett is killed by everyone, but by no one person individually.

Ultimately, after he solves the crime of Ratchett’s murder, Poirot decides not to apprehend them: he officially settles on an alternate story of a murderer who got away. Poirot’s actions make clear that even though Poirot is a detective, his allegiance is to the spirit of the law rather than to the letter. More broadly, his refusal to incriminate the passengers acknowledges that justice has the same principles of established guilt and collective judgment whether it’s pursued inside or outside the courtroom.

Justice ThemeTracker

Justice Quotes in Murder on the Orient Express

"You have saved the honour of the French Army—you have averted much bloodshed! How can I thank you for acceding to my request? To have come so far—" To which the stranger (by name M. Hercule Poirot) had made a fitting reply including the phrase—"But indeed, do I not remember that once you saved my life?" And then the General had made another fitting reply to that, disclaiming any merit for that past service; and with more mention of France, of Belgium, of glory, of honour and of such kindred things they had embraced each other heartily and the conversation had ended.

He was a man perhaps of between sixty and seventy. From a little distance he had the bland aspect of a philanthropist. His slightly bald head, his domed forehead, the smiling mouth that displayed a very white set of false teeth—all seemed to speak of a benevolent personality. Only the eyes belied this assumption. They were small, deep-set and crafty. Not only that. As the man, making some remark to his young companion, glanced across the room, his gaze stopped on Poirot for a moment and just for that second there was a strange malevolence, an unnatural tensity in the glance.

“Name your figure, then," he said. Poirot shook his head. "You do not understand, Monsieur. I have been very fortunate in my profession. I have made enough money to satisfy both my needs and my caprices. I take now only such cases as-interest me."

“I will come to the moment when, after the parents had paid over the enormous sum of two hundred thousand dollars, the child's dead body was discovered; it had been dead for at least a fortnight. Public indignation rose to fever point. And there was worse to follow. Mrs. Armstrong was expecting another baby. Following the shock of the discovery, she gave birth prematurely to a dead child, and herself died. Her broken-hearted husband shot himself.”

"In fact, Colonel Arbuthnot, you prefer law and order to private vengeance?" "Well, you can't go about having blood feuds and stabbing each other like Corsicans or the Mafia," said the Colonel. "Say what you like, trial by jury is a sound system."

Then everyone jumped as Dr. Constantine suddenly hit the table a blow with his fist. "But no," he said. "No, no, and again no! That is an explanation that will not hold water. It is deficient in a dozen minor points. The crime was not committed so—M. Poirot must know that perfectly well."

"I agreed with him, but when this particular point came into my mind, I tried to imagine whether such an assembly was ever likely to be collected under any other conditions. And the answer I made to myself was—only in America. In America there might be a household composed of just such varied nationalities—an Italian chauffeur, an English governess, a Swedish nurse, a German lady's-maid, and so on.”

“I would have stabbed that man twelve times willingly. It wasn't only that he was responsible for my daughter's death and her child's and that of the other child who might have been alive and happy now. It was more than that: there had been other children kidnapped before Daisy, and there might be others in the future. Society had condemned him—we were only carrying out the sentence.”

Home — Essay Samples — Law, Crime & Punishment — Criminal Justice — Wrongful Convictions in Criminal Justice System

Wrongful Convictions in Criminal Justice System

• Categories: Criminal Justice

About this sample

Words: 2493 |

13 min read

Published: Dec 18, 2018

Words: 2493 | Pages: 5 | 13 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Prof. Kifaru

Verified writer

• Expert in: Law, Crime & Punishment

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

6 pages / 2664 words

5 pages / 2350 words

3 pages / 1144 words

3 pages / 1725 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Criminal Justice

The Casey Anthony Case, a pivotal moment in the 21st-century criminal justice landscape, fostered a myriad of opinions, theories, and passionate debates. This essay aims to delve beneath the sensational headlines, scrutinizing [...]

The question of whether the criminal justice system is racist is a matter of significant debate and concern in many societies around the world. It has sparked discussions about systemic inequalities, racial bias, and the impact [...]

As one of the most polarizing court cases in recent memory, the Casey Anthony Case ignited widespread media frenzy and societal debate. This essay intends to delve deep into the intricacies of the case, examining the critical [...]

Prison overcrowding is a pressing issue that has reached crisis proportions in the criminal justice systems of many countries. It occurs when the number of inmates in a prison facility exceeds its designed capacity, leading to a [...]

Youth crime has long been one of the heated topics among researchers in the criminological area (Crime Statistics Agency, 2017). In the history, children who got involved with the criminal justice system were treated no [...]

In 1964, Herbert Packer introduced his models of criminal justice; Due Process and Crime Control. The focus is going to be Crime Control and how Packer created this model to describe the exceeding expectations of the criminal [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free