Background: Views on justice impact many areas of criminal justice, including the concepts of fairness, equality, and impartiality, and influence the ethical standards you apply in various situations in the field. Your views on justice and how you act in situations will affect the opinions others have of you in the communities you serve. Views on justice also impact actions taken and decisions made that affect the wider population.
Write a 1,150- to 1,400-word paper describing the origins of the concept of justice and how you believe they are defined today.
-Explain Aristotle’s ethical ideas of distributive and procedural justice.
-Compare substantive justice and procedural justice, including how procedural justice impacts wrongful convictions and moral perceptions of racial discrimination, such as the Central Park Five and the story of Brian Banks, a former football star.
-Explain how you understand justice as defined by today’s modern criminal justice agencies. Include reasoning and examples in your explanation to support your opinion.
Aristotle`s ethical ideas of distributive and procedural justice
Justice is one of the most important moral and political concepts. For Aristotle, justice is of two types; universal justice and particular justice. The former refers to obedience to laws – that one should be virtuous. As far as particular justice is concerned, it is again of two types; distributive justice and remedial or corrective justice. Distributive justice implies that the state should divide or distribute goods and wealth among citizens according to the merit. Aristotle was of the opinion that this form of justice is the most powerful law to prevent any revolution, as this justice believes in proper and proportional allocation of offices, honors, goods and services as per their requirement being a citizen of state.
In “Language, Appearance and Reality: Doublespeak in 1984”, William Lutz explains how language can be manipulated to disguise its actions or shift responsibility. Referring to this as doublespeak – and exploring four sub-categories: euphemism, jargon, bureaucratese, and inflated language – Lutz identifies how its power is leveraged all around us to enhance truth or make something negative sound nonthreatening. Lutz doesn’t support the use of doublespeak and thinks of it as misleading. The aim of his article is to help readers identify ways in which they are otherwise manipulated by different people and groups due to the pervasive influence and acceptance of deceitful language.
Firstly, Lutz explores euphemism which he explains can be deliberately and appropriately employed in the event of a tragedy – often, as a mollifier to produce gentler connotations. As it is, a person typically passes away (Lutz 382) instead of dies. At the same time, in cases where the U.S. State Department euphemistically refers to killing as unlawful deprivation of life, bombing as a limited duration protective reaction strike or a bullet hole as a ballistically induced aperture in the subcutaneous environment, misleading language serves to bend the truth in order to make dangerous conduct sound reasonable. While doublespeak might seem like unintentional word use, Lutz asserts that it is rather consciously designed to often manipulate (382); euphemism often poses as neutral but contains hidden political or personal agenda to disinfect the issues people encounter.